Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
01/22/2015 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Ballot Measure No. 2 (13psum) - an Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana. | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 22, 2015
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Stoltze, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Charlie Huggins
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: BALLOT MEASURE NO. 2 (13PSUM) - AN ACT TO TAX AND
REGULATE THE PRODUCTION~ SALE~ AND USE OF MARIJUANA.
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. TIM HINTERBERGER, Chairman
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol in Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of Ballot Measure 2.
BRUCE SCHULTE, board member
The Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of Ballot Measure 2.
RACHELLE YEUNG, Legislative Analyst
State Policies Department
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supportive testimony for Ballot
Measure 2.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:00:18 AM
CHAIR BILL STOLTZE called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators McGuire, Wielechowski, Vice-Chair Coghill,
and Chair Stoltze.
^Overview: Ballot Measure No. 2 (13PSUM) - An Act to Tax and
Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana.
Overview: Ballot Measure No. 2 (13PSUM) - An Act to Tax and
Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana.
9:00:38 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that the committee is commencing the
review of the Ballot Measure No. 2, which is soon to be an act
or in other words a law. He said the committee is deliberating
as is always done with a bill. He noted that the sponsors of the
bill are the initiative sponsors: Dr. Tim Hinterberger and Bruce
Schulte. He added that Rachelle Yeung has been asked to testify
and augment the sponsors' testimony.
9:03:11 AM
DR. TIM HINTERBERGER, Chairman, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana
like Alcohol in Alaska (CRMLA), Anchorage, Alaska, explained
that he is one of the primary sponsors of Ballot Measure No. 2.
He added that he is a faculty member of the medical school at
the University of Alaska-Anchorage. He noted that he has been
working on promoting marijuana legalization for the 2000 and
2004 campaigns. He explained that the voters approved the
initiative as follows:
Ballot Measure No. 2 clarifies Alaska's contradictory
marijuana laws, making it legal for adults 21 and over
to possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana;
it also replaces the existing underground, unregulated
marijuana market with taxed and regulated businesses.
The state is required to establish a system that
allows adults 21 and over to purchase marijuana in a
legal regulated setting.
In general, our message to you today is that we
understand the importance of the task that the state
has before it. There will be challenges, but also
opportunities, opportunities for a regulatory
framework that Alaska can be proud of and that can
serve as a model for the rest of the country as other
states join Alaska, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington
in repealing the failed policies of prohibition. We
can protect the public health and safety while
recognizing that creating a new approach to marijuana
will bring benefits to the state as well.
I want to say that we see this primarily as a
regulatory issue given the nine month timeline and the
tremendous amount of work needed to be done well after
adjournment of this legislative session. We drafted
the initiative with the intent that the majority of
the work would be done by a rulemaking authority,
whether it be the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
Board, a separate marijuana-control board or a hybrid
solution.
9:05:26 AM
Quite frankly, we feel that Legislature's role would
be quite limited; with that said, we do recognize that
the Legislature can have a role to play in the process
and there is an interest in doing that. We the
sponsors of the law will be staying attentive during
implementation and hope to serve as a resource to this
committee and others in representing the intent of the
initiative and helping you to avoid considering
legislation that might violate the intent of the
initiative and the will of the voters.
Along with me today I have Bruce Schulte and Rachelle
Yeung. Bruce is an Anchorage businessman and pilot who
served alongside me as co-chair of the Campaign to
Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol, he is a board member
and spokesperson for the Coalition for Responsible
Cannabis Legislation (CRCL), one of the campaign's
partners, and will be speaking on behalf of CRCL
today. Rachelle is a legislative analyst with the
Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) where she supports
activists and legislators interested in reforming
their own marijuana laws in nearly 20 different states
and territories as varied as Alaska, Maryland, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands; she received her degree from the
University of Colorado Law School where she worked in
marijuana policy at Vicente Sederberg, one of the
leading marijuana law firms in the country. MPP is
another partner-organization of ours; they were
founded in 1995 and are currently the largest
nonprofit in the U.S. that's focused solely on ending
marijuana prohibition. Rachelle is here to provide
additional legal and policy expertise to the
committee.
9:07:10 AM
SENATOR COGHILL stated that there are many things in the
initiative that the Legislature will have to do that Dr.
Hinterberger may have contemplated and one pertains to Alaska's
out-of-synch marijuana statutes for the sale and use of
marijuana. He pointed out that the Legislature will have to get
some of the criminal descriptions in-line with the initiative.
He said the expectation is under 21 years of age would be a
legal prohibition. He asserted that one of the things the
Legislature will struggle with is how to establish the legal
levels of impairment and noted that arbitrary driving impairment
levels have been set for alcohol. He asked what the sponsors'
anticipation was for setting marijuana driving-impairment
levels.
DR. HINTERBERGER pointed out that marijuana use is not new to
Alaska because there already is a substantial amount of use. He
noted that law enforcement already has experience in dealing
with marijuana driving impairment. He asserted that whatever is
working now for law enforcement would continue to work equally
well under a regulated legal situation. He offered that in the
future there will be the likelihood that additional technical
solutions will be available to detect marijuana levels in a
person suspected of impairment.
9:09:13 AM
SENATOR COGHILL stated that he did not know if law enforcement
in Alaska had the ability to test for marijuana levels. He asked
if Colorado or Washington have been able to come up with a
testing scheme that would allow Alaska to model after.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that Alaska was pretty well served by
the police's current detection testing procedures. He said he is
not aware that driving under the influence of marijuana has been
a major public safety issue in the state. He pointed out that
CRMLA and CRCL are opposed to the notion of what is called "per
se" testing for a particular level of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
presence as being a crime. He explained that levels of marijuana
metabolites and active ingredients in the person's system have
been shown to not in any way generally reflect impairment. He
stated that the issue needs to be considered carefully.
SENATOR COGHILL said the Legislature will consider that and he
will be looking very closely how other jurisdictions do it. He
added that many of Alaska's workplaces have zero-tolerance
policies and the initiative will change how testing deals with
trace element detection rather than just impairment. He noted
that Commercial Driver License (CDL) drivers have to abide by a
national drug testing requirement. He asked Dr. Hinterberger for
his input on how the state should deal with the workplace as
well as testing options that are similar to detecting alcohol.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that he will defer to Mr. Schulte to
address questions that pertain to the workplace.
9:12:03 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the initiative bans the public
use of marijuana. He asked how Dr. Hinterberger defines public-
use.
DR. HINTERBERGER answered that the initiative's sponsors felt
that the rulemaking-body should address the definition for
public-use. He noted that the public-use definition has cropped
up in other states. He stated that the ABC Board and other
authorities have recently investigated the approaches other
states have taken. He remarked that the public-use definition
will depend very much on local preferences.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Dr. Hinterberger advocates that
the state leave the communities to define public-use or does he
have a definition that he prefers the state enacts.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that there is a great interest in
localities to define public-use as appropriate for their
individual circumstances. He noted that the Mat-Su Valley has
expressed an interest in regulating locally.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the definition of public-use is an issue
where the initiative's sponsors allow for greater governmental
involvement. He noted that Dr. Hinterberger mentioned that there
is a very limited role for government.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that there is a role by the state or
preferably by local entities to define what public consumption
is.
9:14:20 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE pointed out that Dr. Hinterberger stated at the
outset of his testimony that the majority of the initiative's
rulemaking would be left up to the regulatory body, either the
ABC Board or some other entity that the Legislature creates
given the timeline and the complexity. She noted that Dr.
Hinterberger declared that he did see a role for the
Legislature. She asked what the initiative's sponsors envisioned
as the role for the Legislature in the coming months.
DR. HINTERBERGER answered that there is a role for the
Legislature. He pointed out that it would be desirable to revise
existing statutes by removing any reference to criminal
penalties for marijuana use and possession. He added that the
Legislature may be further involved if the draft regulations
that the regulatory-authority proposes requires additional
legislation for effective implementation.
9:16:00 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE clarified that as a voter in Alaska he did not
support the initiative. He stated that the initiative is now
pending law and the Legislature will certainly try to guide the
will of the people coinciding with the legislators' and local
governments' responsibilities in trying to make the pending law
work as safely as possible. He remarked that the questions posed
by the committee may be viewed as confrontational or
antagonistic by the public. He asserted that with any law or
statute, the committee is just trying to probe and explore the
initiative. He pointed out that 53 percent of Alaskans are
anxious to see how the initiative moves forward.
SENATOR COGHILL added that he concurred with Chair Stoltze and
noted that legislators are just trying to figure out how to make
the initiative work to the best of their abilities. He noted
that the initiative's sponsors gave some local control over some
of the marketing, distribution, and the ability to make rules.
He pointed out that Alaska has given some communities a local
option regarding alcohol and asked if the initiative's sponsors
contemplated allowing local communities to opt-out as with
alcohol.
9:18:36 AM
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that a local opt-out option is
definitely an important part of the initiative. He affirmed that
the local opt-out option was clearly stated in the initiative
that local governments of any sort would have the ability to
opt-out either by citizen initiative or by assembly action. He
asserted that the initiative's sponsors intended to parallel
quite closely with the opt-out option for alcohol with one
difference pertaining to personal use and possession. He pointed
out that since the mid-1970s, personal use and possession of
marijuana has been expressly allowed in Alaska by the Alaska
Supreme Court under the Raven Decision. He said because the
court found that marijuana is much less harmful to the
individual and to the society than alcohol, individual private
use of marijuana has been protected and so there is nothing that
could have been done to alter that.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that the initiative's idea is to
regulate marijuana like alcohol, but using marijuana is very
similar to smoking cigarettes. He noted that there are many
places that ban smoking due to secondhand smoke. He said the
initiative may be going around the smoking ban. He asked for a
comment on workplace smoking, secondhand smoke, and the current
regulation on cigarettes.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that there is nothing in the initiative
that prevents a workplace or any other privately owned place
from prohibiting marijuana use. He stated that public use is
contrary to the intent of the initiative. He pointed out that
marijuana differs from tobacco in that marijuana is often
consumed in ways that do not involve smoking. He added that more
people are consuming marijuana through edibles. He noted that an
example where an apartment complex might prohibit tobacco
smoking, but there is no reason to prohibit overall marijuana
consumption.
9:21:40 AM
SENATOR COGHILL noted that marijuana has health benefits as well
as health risks. He asked what marijuana's health risks are from
smoking as well as ingesting edibles.
DR. HINTERBERGER answered that the health risks from marijuana
consumption were the topic of a lot of discussion during the
campaign. He explained that smoking marijuana is not near the
same category of harm as tobacco smoke where there is no
association with cancer and other problems associated with
tobacco smoke. He said he is not aware of any evidence of harm
from moderately consuming marijuana in other ways.
SENATOR COGHILL asked how marijuana potency levels should be
labeled on edibles packaging and how potency levels should be
tested to ensure safe levels.
9:24:06 AM
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that marijuana testing, packaging, and
labeling are an important part of what develops in Alaska; they
are among the primary benefits of having a legal regulated
market as opposed to the current black market system where
buyers have no idea what they are really getting. He said
Colorado and Washington have successful examples of testing,
packaging, and labeling implementation. He reiterated that
potency level labeling is up to the rulemaking authorities to
propose whether the process should be a state function. He
surmised that producers would contract with private testing
laboratories, a function that is clearly what the initiative's
sponsors want to see happen.
SENATOR COGHILL pointing out that the testing laboratories and
marketing descriptions noted by Dr. Hinterberger are regulatory
issues that will be hard to attain under the initiative's
timeline constraints. He said setting up a whole testing
laboratory industry with credible packaging will be difficult.
He asked what Dr. Hinterberger's thoughts are regarding the
timelines demanded by the initiative.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that the timeline issue for putting
together the testing and packaging infrastructure by the private
sector is being underestimated. He pointed out that in other
states there is a pretty well established industry that is
responding very nimbly to changes in regulation and responding
to marijuana's business opportunity. He asserted that he would
be very surprised if the private sector is not able to deal with
the issues that Senator Coghill raised in a timely fashion.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that he does not share Dr.
Hinterberger's optimism. He stated that the Legislature will
plug-away forward in a credible manner with the hope that if
there is a need for flexibility that the issue does not
necessitate litigation.
9:26:44 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that there was a fairly emphatic
statement that the Legislature had limits on its involvement. He
asserted that there is a legislative role for limiting or
regulating dosages and content for the purpose of public safety.
He asked if the initiative's sponsors felt that the Legislature
having a significant policy role was another area that might be
taboo.
DR. HINTERBERGER asserted that the initiative's sponsors felt
strongly that the rulemaking-body should deal with packaging and
dosing.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked for clarification on Dr. Hinterberger's
definition for rulemaking-body. He inquired if rulemaking-body
did not mean a group other than an elected group such as the
Legislature or a city council.
DR. HINTERBERGER answered that the rulemaking-body would refer
to the ABC Board as it stands now, unless the Legislature were
to create a separate marijuana control board.
CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that the ABC Board gets their
direction from the legislative-body. He remarked that public
safety and the health aspect is an important part of the
initiative. He noted that Dr. Hinterberger mentioned the Supreme
Court's role and voiced his desire not to litigate every aspect
if there is a concomitance of an agreement on issues relating to
the initiative. He asserted that he would hate in good faith to
assert the Legislature's responsibility regulating dosages and
find out the initiative's sponsors are going to litigate against
the Legislature. He remarked that the reframe he has heard
indicates that any changes made will result in litigation. He
said he wants to operate in good faith as a legislative-body
trying to implement the initiative and that precipitates his
desire for the committee to get clarified answers.
9:28:59 AM
DR. HINTERBERGER reiterated that that initiative's sponsors
believe that the regulation of dosage and packaging as a
function for a regulatory board like the ABC Board. He said the
Legislature's role is not a contentious issue and seems to be
very straight forward. He explained that the Legislature
certainly can have a role within the initiative's framework. He
remarked that the initiative's sponsors are simply concerned
that the Legislature not try to involve itself with changing the
initiative's intent or doing anything contrary to the
initiative's intent and standing in the way of the will of the
voters.
CHAIR STOLTZE replied that the Legislature understands that part
of the rhetoric and acknowledged that the Legislature is trying
to make the initiative work.
SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that the initiative's sponsors may have
intended that a rulemaking-body would take on the bulk of
regulatory issues and the Legislature would simply look at
decriminalization. She stated that the reality is not going to
be what the initiative's sponsors had intended. She pointed out
that the initiative itself is to regulate marijuana like alcohol
and noted that over her 15 years in the Legislature, there has
been a bill every year in alcohol's Title 4 statutes. She
affirmed Chair Stoltze's comment that the committee's dialog is
not adversarial, but rather more of a practicality that the
Legislature does engage in more policymaking on some of the
rulemaking areas than what the initiative's sponsors might think
when it comes to alcohol and other controlled substances. She
surmised that the Legislature is not going to feel comfortable
in leaving the ABC Board to decide THC levels, dosages,
advertising, and zoning because the Legislature has not in the
past. She noted that the Legislature has lowered the blood-
alcohol level, enhanced restrictions on alcohol sales to minors,
addressed happy hours, and legislated brewpub guidelines. She
said she understands the sponsors' goal and noted that it is
human to say, "Regulate everyone else, govern everyone else, but
we respectfully don't want the Legislature to come in." She
reiterated that the voters have spoken and the initiative passed
to decriminalize marijuana and the Legislature will implement
the initiative. She detailed that the Senate Judiciary Committee
will decriminalize marijuana, but to say that the Legislature
won't have any role looking at the high intoxicant levels or
dosaging is fairly naïve.
9:32:47 AM
DR. HINTERBERGER stated that the initiative's sponsors do not
have an objection to the Legislature specifying limits on dosage
or specifying certain aspects of packaging as long as the
legislation is within the guidelines of the language of the
initiative.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that Dr. Hinterberger's comments brings
clarity to the Legislature's role as defined by the initiative's
sponsors.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Dr. Hinterberger would recommend
the Legislature to enact THC based impairment levels for drivers
and if so, what THC level would be recommended. He inquired
about the issue of marijuana use at employment and noted that
some employers have zero tolerance policies, including municipal
workers. He detailed that marijuana can stay in a person's
system for months.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that the initiative's sponsors strongly
oppose setting limits on THC impairment levels. He pointed out
that "per se" limits on THC content is something that varies
from one individual to another. He said people are actively
researching the relationship between THC and impairment. He
asserted that setting specific THC levels would be premature by
the state.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there needs to be a state-level
policy that addresses employment and some employers enacting
zero tolerance policies on marijuana use.
DR. HINTERBERGER stated that there is nothing in the initiative
that prevents employers from doing anything to alter their
current zero tolerance policies if the employers feel zero
tolerance is necessary for their particular work force.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Dr. Hinterberger was okay with a
person being dismissed from a zero tolerance employer where a
test result shows a couple nanograms of THC from a hair sample
due to marijuana use that occurred several months in the past.
9:35:48 AM
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that personally he thinks that the
scenario described would be inappropriate and all cases would
depend on the circumstances. He explained that the zero
tolerance scenario noted by Senator Wielechowski gets beyond
anything to do with the initiative.
CHAIR STOLTZE added that his intention is to provide a greater
public awareness by bringing in folks from industry, federal
government, and others that have established guidelines. He
noted that he has talked with organized labor whose mission it
is to put people to work and related that employees have argued
that they can smoke marijuana starting November 5 and cannot be
tested anymore. He asserted that the Legislature needs to
achieve some clarity for policy decisions as well as providing
education for the public because there is always a lot of
excitement and apprehension for a new law. He remarked that
Alaska is not a nanny-state and the committee wants to let
people have the information to make the appropriate decision. He
said legislators are all concerned about Alaskans not only
getting jobs, but keeping them. He noted that union and non-
union trades have expressed their apprehensions. He asserted
that the committee will spend time on employers dealing with
marijuana. He summarized that the public will make their own
decisions, but the committee will provide information through
its testifiers to address the issue of public misunderstanding
as to what is allowable.
9:37:57 AM
SENATOR COGHILL explained that one of the things he looks at
when looking at a bill is, "What is repealed and what is
defined." He noted that in the definition of marijuana there is
a reference to "salt." He asked that Dr. Hinterberger review the
sectional definitions and help the committee understand, for
example, what a "salt" is.
DR. HINTERBERGER answered that "salt" is an odd usage that
pertains to a chemical or pharmacological reference to certain
kind of derivative that might be used. He noted that the CRCL is
currently working on refining definitions that would be of use
to both the Legislature and potential people in the industry.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that he is looks forward to the
definitions coming forward to the committee. He remarked that
people have a tendency to think of marijuana as something that
is smoked and not take into account related forms defined as
"derivative," "resin," "concentrate," or "salt."
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that one of the committee's
responsibilities is understanding and if necessary, clarifying
some of the definitions for providing guidance. He remarked that
the definition for marijuana "derivatives" seems vague and he
will seek input from the Administration as well. He asked Dr.
Hinterberger if clarifying definitions and removing ambiguities
was an area for the Legislature, Administration, and other
governing bodies that still complies with the intent of the
voters.
9:40:49 AM
DR. HINTERBERGER answered yes.
SENATOR MCGUIRE called attention to forming a new marijuana
control board. She noted that the initiative group initially had
taken no position on whether the rulemaking body was the ABC
Board. She revealed that the ABC Board had updated their
proposal to have a marijuana control board within the ABC Board
and there would be some shared resources to keep the fiscal
costs down. She revealed that the ABC Board's proposal for the
new board members will consist of two public members, a couple
of industry members, and maybe one commissioner or something
like that. She asked if Dr. Hinterberger had an opinion on the
ABC Board's proposal.
DR. HINTERBERGER replied that the proposal is sort of a hybrid
approach that the sponsors think makes quite a bit of sense in
the current political environment. He said the sponsors are open
to the proposal's approach, provided that it in no way delays
the timeline mandated by Ballot Measure 2.
CHAIR STOLTZE specified that after reading the initiative, the
default position absent the Legislature acting will be the ABC
Board. He asked if his summation was correct and was in line
with the sponsors' position.
DR. HINTERBERGER answered yes. He specified that the intent of
the initiative is that the ABC Board be named the default board.
He added that the initiative states that the Legislature can
create a separate marijuana control board. He said authorizing
the ABC Board to have a sub-board to regulate marijuana makes
sense.
9:43:26 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that his intent is to clarify some of the
things in the initiative for people who may not have read the
entire initiative prior to voting.
SENATOR COGHILL asked that Dr. Hinterberger address the
initiative's definitions regarding "personal use." He noted that
transferring one ounce or less of marijuana could be interpreted
to include leaves, derivatives, or concentrates.
DR. HINTERBERGER answered that the sponsors see it makes sense
to regulate the amount of possession for concentrate differently
than for unprocessed marijuana.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that he would take Dr. Hinterberger's
comment as another place where the Legislature needs to look
into the details and maybe make some recommendations.
CHAIR STOLTZE added that the Administration will hopefully be
involved as well.
9:45:13 AM
BRUCE SCHULTE, board member, The Coalition for Responsible
Cannabis Legislation (CRCL), Fairbanks, Alaska. He explained
CRCL's role and intentions as follows:
The CRCL was established as serving as a resource to
the Legislature and local governments during the
rulemaking process, so we hope to work with all of
those entities as the rulemaking plays out.
I would like to address a couple of things that came
up during the conversation so far. With regard to
workplace testing, I'm a commercial pilot, so I'm
subject to testing and I take that very seriously. I
would certainly support and I recognize that certain
safety related fields should continue to drug test and
that is totally appropriate. I think that as we
navigate this social change, some employers may choose
to modify their workplace drug testing and then they
should have that right.
With regard to the local option, the opt-out option,
that is certainly articulated in the Ballot Measure
and we support that. We would hope though that local
governments would instead of simply opting out of
various parts of this industry, as a default, we would
hope that they would instead try and regulate their
way to allowing the industry to exist in some fashion;
that said, I think there is a tremendous opportunity
at the state level to craft the rules in such a way
that smaller communities that maybe don't have the
time or resources to develop their own rules, could
fall back on the statewide rules and not have to opt-
out, but just could use the statewide rules.
9:47:39 AM
With regard to smoke, this is a very broad topic and
I'm probably going to come back to this again. A lot
of us are familiar with the consumption of marijuana
as it was 30 years ago, that was my reference point
coming into this campaign, but the industry has
evolved tremendously. The smoking of leaf and flower
from the plants has actually diminished, the
consumption, the preferred consumption has
transitioned to concentrates over the years and they
actually represent, in some cases, more than half of
the market, so I think it is important to recognize
that.
The CRCL absolutely supports reasonable guidelines on
packaging, on testing requirements, and on labeling.
We absolutely do not condone or support the marketing
of marijuana products to children and we would support
reasonable efforts to keep that from happening; that
said, we do think that there are existing methods for
packaging that would meet the safety needs of the
public. We feel that the testing could very easily,
probably should indicate levels of CBDs and THC in the
products, as well as perhaps testing for adulterates
like mold, residual fertilizer and pesticides.
9:49:06 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked for an explanation of acronyms used in the
initiative.
MR. SCHULTE explained that CBD stands for Cannabidiol, that's
the component in the plant that has more medicinal and
therapeutic properties than psychoactive. He said THC is
Tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the psychoactive component that
people use more for recreational purposes. He stated that CRCL
is working on a white-paper that clarifies many of the terms,
not just chemically but also the derivatives as to what they
are, how they are derived, and how they are consumed. He said
CRCL found that in discussions with elected officials at every
level that a lot of the terminology is not clear and a lot of
the practices are not clear. He stated that CRCL will present
the definition white-book to the committee the following week.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that Tetrahydrocannabinol does not sound as
wholesome as THC.
MR. SCHULTE continued his overview as follows:
A couple of other points, we have heard from local
governments that they would like the state to weigh in
on a definition of "public" versus "private" space. In
our view, some spaces where large gatherings might
take place are in fact private in their nature. For
example, a bar that has an outdoor smoking area where
they have allowed their patrons to smoke cigarettes,
that would be a private space and it's our position
that spaces like that if the business owner chooses,
might be available for the consumption of marijuana
products in some form; again, that's something for
further scrutiny of course, but we would hope to see
some sort of definition there and I think many of the
local governments would as well.
With regard to dosing and limits on edibles and so
forth, we agree that that is a concern, obviously it
is a concern. We found through the experience of
Colorado for example that 200 milligrams (mg) of THC
in a single chocolate bar was excessive, so we support
and we would hope to help guide some reasonable
limits. A definition for example on what constitutes a
serving and then how many servings could be contained
in a single package.
With regard to the rulemaking body, it has always been
CRCL's position that the best approach for a
successful marijuana industry is to have a dedicated
marijuana control board; within the initiative, that
falls by default to the ABC Board. The option remains
with the Legislature to designate a marijuana control
board. We recognize though for many reasons, budgetary
and scheduling and so forth, some sort of a hybrid-
board might develop and we totally support that and by
a hybrid-board I mean a dedicated marijuana control
board housed within the ABC Board. I have spoken with
Cynthia Franklin a number of times, I found her to be
knowledgeable, motivated, and we think she would be a
great resource in that rulemaking process. For several
reasons we could envision a hybrid-board with folks
dedicated to marijuana rulemaking would perhaps be a
practical approach.
9:53:21 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if Mr. Schulte envisioned the board to be a
more autonomous board from the politically motivated body of the
Legislature and the Administration.
MR. SCHULTE answered that CRCL respects and acknowledges that
elected officials speak for their constituents. He asserted that
a dedicated rulemaking board would be more nimble and more able
to get into the rulemaking process within the nine month
timeline versus the much shorter period that the Legislature has
to work with in conjunction with their other responsibilities.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that voters rejected a gambling initiative
six or eight years ago that attempted to get the legislative
bodies out of the process so that an independent board could
make the rules, regulations, and expansions. He stated that he
did not know and has not heard if the voters' expectations for
the initiative are for a more autonomous board from their
elected representatives. He remarked that nimbleness is often
equated with being less democratic and often being autocratic
because people do not have to be asked in addition to no checks
or balances.
MR. SCHULTE replied that CRCL's goal is to see the right
regulations develop in a way that allows the industry to grow
and thrive in a regulated legitimate manner. He set forth that
one of the opportunities CRCL sees is to create a framework that
allows and encourages the black market to transition over to a
legitimate business model.
9:55:32 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that there is a reformative aspect to the
initiative that folks will be brought out of the shadows.
MR. SCHULTE answered yes. He said on occasion he has talked to
individuals in the black market who have expressed resistance,
but noted that many have embraced the change to working within
the regulated market as long as the regulations are not too
onerous, complicated, or cumbersome. He said public safety is
obviously paramount, but the challenge beyond public safety is
to create a safe rulemaking environment that also allows the
marijuana industry to compete with the black market. He said
CRCL believes that balance will gradually diminish the black
market over the coming years.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked to address the black market versus grey
markets and inquired if government should take an enhanced role
and a heavier-hand against people growing outside of the
parameters.
MR. SCHULTE answered that CRCL sees two components specified in
Ballot Measure 2: personal cultivation and consumption, and the
commercial aspect. He stated that CRCL does not anticipate a lot
more involvement from law enforcement. He said CRCL hopes that
the rulemaking process would be sufficiently broad to allow the
industry to develop and encourage the black market operators to
move to a legitimate business model so that law enforcement does
not have to spend time with them. He asserted that regulatory
enforcement would be expected, but not necessarily involving law
enforcement.
9:58:34 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that larger businesses in the alcohol
industry have used the ABC Board's enforcement powers to go
after club licenses that included military based organizations
that he is sympathetic to. He asserted that there should be
caution for an overly charged board outside of legislative
oversight. He asked if the marijuana industry will be dominated
by big players. He said he sincerely doubts that the American
Legion in Chugiak is going to have a cannabis-room; however, if
they did, will they be snuffed out by big marijuana. He
summarized that he gets a little nervous when a regulatory board
has too much power that the people's body is kept out. He said
the initiative is a people's voice and noted that the
Legislature is also the people's voice.
10:01:02 AM
MR. SCHULTE replied that from an industry perspective, CRCL
shares the same concern. He revealed that the existing market is
fairly large and CRCL would like to see the industry change
their business model and come out of the shadows. He said the
only way current operators will change is if they are not put
into competition with large outside mega-corporations. He said
from an industry perspective, CRCL would support reasonable
efforts to keep marijuana an Alaska-based industry to the
greatest extent possible. He asserted that CRCL does not support
businesses that are not going to operate in a regulated
environment and in some cases, criminal sanctions may be
appropriate. He said CRCL hopes that the vast majority would not
fall into the unregulated market but would take to the
regulations and change their business models to perhaps combine
some smaller mom-and-pop operations into a slightly large one.
He surmised that the current market is not dominated by large
players, but consists of several hundred or more small
operators.
He remarked that on a side note that a number of CRCL's members
are former military personnel who use marijuana medicinally to
treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He said he did not
know if it would be out of the question for a legion hall to
either sell or allow marijuana consumption on their property.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked about the issue with the regulatory board if
the Legislature has an appropriate role in setting standards of
conduct and weighing in on past acts or prior criminal activity
for being involved in the industry.
10:03:57 AM
MR. SCHULTE answered yes. He said CRCL wants to see responsible,
respectful citizens within the marijuana industry. He stated
that CRCL would probably support some type of merit-based system
where past criminal behavior weighs against being eligibility
for a license.
SENATOR COGHILL stated that he questions the initiative's
definition where consuming marijuana in public is unlawful. He
asserted that enforcement will be difficult when a person can
consume marijuana in something as small as a little chocolate
bar. He reiterated that he thought of marijuana being smoked
when he first read the initiative. He asked what Mr. Schulte
anticipated on public consumption when marijuana can be consumed
by either smoking or in a derivative form.
10:05:29 AM
MR. SCHULTE replied that there are a number of derivative forms
of marijuana and offered that one of his concerns pertains to
being careful that law enforcement is not put into a position of
trying to guess whether a chocolate bar is in fact infused with
marijuana or not. He noted that CRCL does not support public
smoking of marijuana and the act is clearly articulated in the
bill and is something that CRCL stands by. He said there are
scenarios where consumption is either through smoking, vaping,
or eating edibles. He noted that a chocolate bar with marijuana
could be consumed in a bar's designated smoking area or in a bar
that sells marijuana due to the establishment's 21 and over
policy where IDs are checked at the door. He added that there
are other scenarios too where one might have a convention or
industry expo conducted at a private venue where some limited
consumption might be appropriate where other factors are
recognized. He noted that allowing marijuana consumption at an
industry expos would be helpful for the players in the industry.
He summarized that people prefer to consume derivatives and oil
extracts in vapor form. He explained that vaporizers have very
little residual smoke from organic material and noted that the
technology is state of the art in marijuana consumption. He said
vaping marijuana was a bit of an epiphany for him and one of the
reasons why he believes CRCL would be helpful in explaining the
vaporizing practices for lawmakers.
10:08:07 AM
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that the public consumption of
marijuana is one of those areas that would be hammered-out if it
was going through a regular committee, but the committee is
presented with a lawful act that consuming marijuana in public
is unlawful, period. He asserted that the committee has to
figure out what consumption in public means and attach a
definition to Section 900 in the act. He said CRCL's white-paper
will assist the committee.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that marijuana consumption has referenced
tobacco use at times. He pointed out that "public" as used in
cigarette consumption terms requires imbibers to stand out in
the cold. He remarked that cigarette consumers may take umbrage
if marijuana users are allowed to consume indoors in public. He
noted that the committee process probably would have had a lot
of public input and suggestions on public consumption, but he
conceded that the committee is dealing with a constitutionally
established concept regarding the initiative.
10:10:00 AM
MR. SCHULTE summarized that CRCL is working on its white-paper
and will present a copy to the committee. He added that CRCL
welcomes the opportunity to work with the Legislature and local
governments as the marijuana rules are developed. He said CRCL
recognizes that the elected officials do represent the public.
He set forth that CRCL supports and agrees with a lot of the
public and health concerns that were raised during the campaign.
He asserted that CRCL firmly believes that the legitimate public
concerns can be addressed. He said CRCL thinks that there are
models and examples elsewhere in the country that can be
adopted. He summarized that CRCL hopes that Alaska can become a
model for marijuana legislation going forward.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that several people involved in the
industry commented that any changes made by the Legislature will
result in a lawsuit. He asked how Mr. Schulte intended to
contest any changes should the Legislature abridge the
initiative's fairly strict limits.
MR. SCHULTE replied that the initiative's backers prefer to work
together with the Legislature. He noted that most of the
contentious issues raised are based on incomplete information.
He asserted that the feeling is once the complete information is
out there and once the processes' products are understood, there
are solutions for almost every one of the issues that have come
up. He remarked that some of the issues are a little more
awkward than others; for example, the definition of public
versus private space is not an easy one to answer. He asserted
that as long as the fundamental framework of the initiative's
intent is not changed, the initiative's backers do not envision
going to court and would rather work with the Legislature than
to have the initiative become contentious at any level.
10:12:53 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE added that the Legislature will work at its best
level to work through the common sense compromises and try to
clarify the issues. He affirmed that his concern relates to
affiliates outside of the initiative's sponsors who will chose
to litigate due to initiative changes as well as not being
involved in the discussion. He asserted that the Legislature is
trying to operate on good faith to help implement the law. He
pointed out that the Legislature is going to rely on a lot of
good faith in doing what is best in the public safety aspects as
well as complying with the intent of the initiative. He stated
that he hopes the process remains in good faith. He said he
knows Mr. Schulte and remarked that he can trust his word. He
admitted that as in any industry, there are other segments that
have every right to go out and do what they wish; however, they
do not operate on the same level of integrity.
MR. SCHULTE reiterated that the initiative's sponsors would much
rather work in a cooperative manner with state and local
governments. He remarked that the initiative's sponsors cannot
control every player in the industry and conceded that some may
take issue with one rule or another. He envisioned times when
the initiative's sponsors will side with the Legislature or with
the rulemaking board in opposing a specific issue from an
opposing viewpoint. He summarized that CRCL is gathering and
vetting input from its members in order to bring forward
recommendations that represent the industry's best possible
viewpoint.
10:15:23 AM
SENATOR COGHILL noted that he appreciates Mr. Schulte's
comments. He referenced the "personal use" section in the
initiative, Section 020, and pointed out that the definition of
marijuana allows for an ounce or less to be transferred in
addition to possessing six immature plants without selling them.
He reiterated that his initial understanding encompassed an
ounce of marijuana leaves, but the definition also pertains to
concentrate, derivatives, or salts. He asked that Mr. Schulte to
explain what an ounce of marijuana means.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that maybe Mr. Schulte can clarify
whether the initiative's sponsors meant the product or if he
believes the derivatives should be treated differently in
regulation or statute.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that Chair Stoltze's comment was a good
point. He asserted that marijuana under the definition includes
all of the forms that he noted.
CHAIR STOLTZE declared that they can put their intent on the
record.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that is fine. He asked Mr. Schulte if he
had any comments on his concern regarding marijuana's broad
definition.
10:17:02 AM
MR. SCHULTE replied the he would not want to attempt to change
the intent of the initiative; however, he pointed out that
Senator Coghill raised a good point.
He explained that an ounce of hash oil would be an incredibly
expensive commodity and remarked that he is not sure that hash
oil will be exchanged between private individuals due to cost.
He stated that CRCL would support a rule whereby the sale of
hash oil would have a maximum amount at a retail level. He added
that he does not know what a maximum amount may be. He said
several ounces of hash oil will probably be transferred between
a hash oil extractor and a licensed edibles producer. He
summarized that wholesale and retail transfers have to be
acknowledged in addition to person-to-person.
He referenced talk about butane hash oil and explained that the
extraction process uses butane. He set forth that CRCL does not
support the home use of butane extraction due to the compound's
volatility. He asserted that CRCL believes that hash oil can be
produced in a controlled environment using appropriate equipment
and trained personnel. He stated that incidents of fires or
explosions associated with home use will simply go away, much
the way home distilleries and bootlegging went away with the end
of Prohibition.
10:19:16 AM
SENATOR COGHILL revealed that Colorado had a challenge with its
"gifting" provisions where taxation was avoided. He explained
that people in Colorado paid a cover charge at a location where
marijuana was "gifted" upon entry. He pointed out that taxation
becomes a bigger question due to marijuana's definition that
goes beyond an ounce of leaves and stalks.
MR. SCHULTE replied that marijuana's cultivation is a key point.
He explained that the initiative does give individuals the right
to cultivate up to six plants. He noted that growing plants is
an expensive proposition that requires a lot of equipment,
space, time, and expertise to do it well. He said CRCL hopes
that smaller growers with 50 to 100 plants would meet the market
need of those individuals that are just looking for an ounce or
half ounce of whatever product. He remarked that CRCL is
concerned that folks will be taking their six plants at home and
selling what they grow to friends through some sort of
disingenuous mechanism. He hoped that individuals selling what
they grow at home would be relatively minor if small operators
are allowed to participate in a regulated industry.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that worst case scenarios have to be
taken into account when scrutinizing texts of laws. He pointed
out that Mr. Schulte provided a personal use example where a
person 21 years or older could also mean a group of people or an
establishment. He advised that regulations must be thought
through for their real meaning.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the smoking ban in Anchorage and
some other communities would not apply to marijuana.
10:22:32 AM
MR. SCHULTE answered that he believes the smoking ban in
Anchorage includes enclosed spaces; for example, the inside of a
restaurant or a bar. He said he is not sure CRCL envisions
stretching or modifying the smoking bans to exclude marijuana.
He stated that CRCL hopes that establishments with designated
outdoor smoking areas have the leeway to allow the consumption
of marijuana in some form. He specified that smoking or vaping
would possibly fall to local jurisdictions to define or for the
business owner to choose.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if a business should have the leeway to
prohibit marijuana if they allow tobacco.
MR. SCHULTE answered yes. He explained that he ultimately
supports the rights of a business to do what they see as best on
their property. He said the best analogy is some businesses may
choose to ban the consumption of alcohol on their property and
those businesses should legitimately have the right to ban the
consumption of marijuana as well.
CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that the initiative's sponsors
campaigned that alcohol is worse than marijuana and Mr.
Schulte's previous statement sounds like a fertile ground for
litigation.
MR. SCHULTE replied that he is not sure who would bring the
lawsuit. He said CRCL would find it hard to support a frivolous
lawsuit that was started by an individual. He asserted that CRCL
would support the rights of the business owner over those of the
patron in the scenario that was described.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the Anchorage ordinance
defines smoking as follows:
Smoking means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying
any lighted tobacco product.
He set forth that marijuana consumption would not fall under the
Anchorage ordinance.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that marijuana consumption would also not
fall under the Palmer ordinance as well.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that he does not know how other
ordinances read or how Senator Micciche's ordinance reads. He
asked if Mr. Schultz believes that marijuana should be applied
to the smoking legislation or ordinances that are enacted
throughout the state.
10:25:55 AM
MR. SCHULTE replied that the discussion regarding e-cigarettes
could be expanded to marijuana. He explained that marijuana
vaporizers essentially use the same technology as e-cigarettes;
they are primarily closed systems that produce very little
residual smoke that would impact patrons. He said he would
envision a scenario where both e-cigarettes and marijuana
vaporizers are allowable.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that Mr. Schulte and Dr. Hinterberger
will have future opportunities to testify before the committee
as spokespeople and sponsors of a bill.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that the Legislature is between
Alaska's voters and the federal government. He specified that
the challenges pertain to banking restrictions because of
guarantees, security of cash, taxation, and the requirements on
the marijuana businesses. He asked if the initiative's sponsors
have thought through the challenges that he described.
MR. SCHULTE answered that CRCL is acutely aware of the
challenges at the federal level. He said CRCL is working with
national organizations and is hoping to work with Alaska's
congressional delegation to remedy the noted challenges. He
conceded that banking laws and IRS rules are problematic and
CRCL is hopeful that modifications will be allowed.
SENATOR COGHILL asked that any forth coming information be
presented to the committee as well as recommendations on laws
that might have to be modified to make sure Alaska complies with
federal law.
MR. SCHULTE replied that CRCL welcomes the opportunity to work
with the Legislature going forward. He reiterated that CRCL will
provide the committee with information and remain ready during
the rulemaking process.
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that the best advice will help the
Legislature to navigate through the challenge with contradictory
bodies of law.
10:29:47 AM
RACHELLE YEUNG, Legislative Analyst, State Policies Department,
Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), Washington, D.C. She read a MPP
overview statement as follows:
MPP has been working with activists in Alaska for many
years. The Marijuana Policy Project is a nonprofit
organization. We are the largest advocacy organization
in the country working towards marijuana policy
reform. We have been working with activists such as
Dr. Hinterberger and Mr. Schulte in Alaska for many
years. MPP supports local activists who would like to
reform their own marijuana laws.
She summarized that she looks forward to working with the
Legislature and other rulemaking bodies towards the
implementation of Ballot Measure 2.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that MPP is on the federal level and
has probably dealt with banking in other states. He said his
understanding is it is a violation to use credit cards and
checks to pay for marijuana. He asked what the state may do to
help get around not being able to pay for marijuana with check
or credit card.
MS. YEUNG replied that there are several solutions that other
states are looking into. She related that state-licensed credit
unions have been formed in Colorado and are awaiting federal
approval for certain aspects. She revealed that the credit
unions in Colorado will be able to function as a financial
institution in which marijuana businesses can receive banking
services. She revealed that a bank in Oregon just announced that
it is willing to openly work with marijuana businesses. She
summarized that MPP is working with Congress toward more tenable
banking solutions.
10:33:39 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that a letter was received from a
constituent which asked if legislative support for marijuana
legalization interferes with the oath taken by senators to
uphold the state and federal constitutions and rules. She asked
what advice was given to Colorado and Washington State
lawmakers.
She called attention to Alaska's transportation issues and
challenges due to the state's vast geographical areas. She noted
that some locations are only accessible by boats that use
federal waters or aircraft that are regulated by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). She noted the conundrum in states
where people have a right to use marijuana, but they have to use
transportation methods that come through federal entities that
have federal jurisdiction.
10:35:28 AM
MS. YEUNG replied that she does not think there is a conflict
between the duties of elected representatives to uphold federal
laws and constitution as well as representing the will of the
voters in a particular state. She explained that the Federal
Controlled Substances Act is very explicit about the fact that
that federal law is not intended to occupy the entire field of
drug policy and a lot of space is left for states to interpret
their own controlled substances act as they will. She specified
that criminal law is generally left up to the state, so removing
criminal penalties for the possession of certain substances
would be entirely consistent with the division of powers between
states and the federal government.
She addressed the transportation issue and noted that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo in August 2013 that
outlined their 8 enforcement policies. She noted that DOJ's 8
enforcement priorities did not include marijuana transit from
one legal state to another. She said MPP is hopeful that the
lesser issue of transferring within one's state would not be an
issue for federal law enforcement.
10:37:12 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE said the committee will seek clarification from
other entities on Ms. Yeung's comments.
SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that the issue of state-to-state has not
been clarified and is still prohibited. She specified that the
intrastate travel using federally controlled navigable waters
and airspace requires further clarification.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that Alaska has different kinds of
governments within the state that pertains to reservations and
tribal entities. He asked how Colorado and Washington State have
addressed taxation and rules regarding other government entities
within their states.
MS. YEUNG replied that Chair Stoltze's question is timely given
that DOJ just issued a recent memo extending the flexibility
given to states towards experimenting with their own marijuana
policies towards tribal governments as well.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if Ms. Yeung could share the information
with the committee. He noted that he was not aware of the noted
memo from DOJ.
10:39:37 AM
MS. YEUNG replied that the DOJ memo will be forwarded to the
committee and she encouraged the Legislature to seek
clarification.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that the experience based on states
involving in gambling and cigarette sales is something that the
Legislature needs to be aware of. He asserted that he is not
trying to cause tensions between different entities. He set
forth that Don Mitchell could provide the Legislature with some
guidance on the issue with marijuana policies towards tribal
governments.
10:41:28 AM
MS. YEUNG summarized MPP's role as follows:
MPP is not here to subvert the role of local activists
and the campaign in assisting to implement this law.
We simply want to serve as a resource and provide
background and perspective for how these laws have
worked out in other states. I would also like to note
that we want to ensure that in implementing Measure 2,
the legal protections legalizing adult possession of
marijuana are not repealed or accidently repealed and
replaced with an affirmative defense. I note this
because the medical marijuana law that was passed many
years ago in Alaska was replaced with a mere
affirmative defense and it led to the thwarting of the
will of the voters. So we just want to be very careful
with how the legalization aspect of the measure is
interpreted. I would also like to address a previous
question by Senator Coghill about the role of the
Legislature in clarifying the definition of marijuana,
of course there are certain aspects that do require
additional clarity such as what one ounce of
concentrates or extracts could mean, but the
definition of marijuana that was passed by the voters
itself should not be altered, all of those elements
included under the definition of marijuana appears to
be the will of the voters that all of them be
legalized and be available for adult possession and
purchase. Of course we would like to provide as much
assistance as possible both to the Legislature and the
rulemaking body in meeting your deadlines timelines as
approved by the voters of Alaska.
10:44:04 AM
DR. HINTERBERGER summarized as follows:
Our primary interest here is seeing that the intent of
the initiative is protected and that the will of the
voters as expressed in voting in favor of this
initiative, keeping in mind that there was a huge
amount of debate about this in advance of the election
and I think we have to assume that people knew what
they were voting for when they voted to legalize
marijuana in all of the forms that are described in
the initiative. We want to see that that gets
implemented, that's our primary concern and as Ms.
Yeung stated, making sure all of the forms of
marijuana described in the initiative are made
available in appropriate manner and that the timeline
specified in the initiative is adhered to.
CHAIR STOLTZE acknowledged that the public was keenly aware of
what the initiative's sponsors were doing in legalizing
marijuana. He stated that the committee is going to be mostly
discussing commercializing marijuana and that is where there is
some ambiguity.
DR. HINTERBERBER responded that the public voted with full
knowledge that they were legalizing the commercial availability
of marijuana and marijuana products with the goal of taking it
out of the hands of the black market and creating a regulated,
licensed, tax paying market.
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that the next committee meeting will
include testimony from the Walker administration in addition to
representatives from the departments of: Revenue, Public Safety,
Law, and Commerce. He added that Mr. Jesse, Executive Director
of the Mental Health Trust, will also participate. He explained
that the committee's initial meetings have invited-testimony and
his intention is to have public-testimony. He summarized that
the State Affairs Committee is not going to introduce a bill. He
specified that the committee is going to deal with bills that
are already introduced and help facilitate the process as it
goes to the next committees of jurisdiction. He explained that
addressing Ballot Measure 2 is primarily going to be an
exploratory education and a process for input for involved
parties with the committee facilitating the continuation of the
debate and how the Legislature implements the people's law. He
said the committee welcomes suggestions from people who wish to
testify in order to aid in the deliberation of a complex issue.
10:48:11 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stoltze adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee hearing at 10:48 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 13PSUM - 2014 General Election OEP - Ballot Measure 2 Selected Pages.pdf |
SSTA 1/22/2015 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana |
| USDOJ 2013 Cole Memo on Marijuana Enforcement.pdf |
SSTA 1/22/2015 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana |
| USDOJ 2014 Wilkinson Memo on Marijuana Issues in Indian Country.pdf |
SSTA 1/22/2015 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana |
| (S)STA 1.22.2015 - Committee Follow-Up Questions & Responses.pdf |
SSTA 1/22/2015 9:00:00 AM |
|
| AMHB - Comments Relating to (S)STA Hearing Jan 22 2015.pdf |
SSTA 1/22/2015 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana |
| CRCL - White Paper - Jan 28 2015.pdf |
SSTA 1/22/2015 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana |