HOUSE BILL NO. 110 "An Act raising the minimum age to purchase, sell, exchange, or possess tobacco, a product containing nicotine, or an electronic smoking product; relating to transporting tobacco, a product containing nicotine, or an electronic smoking product; relating to the taxation of electronic smoking products; and providing for an effective date." 9:23:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN, SPONSOR, explained HB 110 taxed vaping products or electronic smoking devices. There was a section included in the bill that defined electronic smoking devices. The bill raised the minimum age for purchasing tobacco in Alaska to 21. It also prohibited the sales of tobacco products over the internet and required a third party verification for a delivery. If a person were to order tobacco products from a shop in Anchorage to be delivered to Nome, they would have to verify their age with the delivery person upon arrival. It would not be considered an internet sale. Representative Hannan relayed that the bill also placed vaping products into Alaska's tobacco taxation structure. In Alaska, tobacco taxes were uniform by type. However, the statutes distinguished cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco by type. Vaping was not taxed, as it was not a thing the last time tobacco taxes were modified. Vaping was not mentioned in the statute and therefore not taxed. She thought vaping was similar to all of Alaska's nicotine products, and currently vaping was extremely popular among underage smokers. Between 2017 and 2018 the Centers for Disease Control's National Youth Tobacco Survey saw a 78 percent increase in the use of e-cigarettes by high school students. Many people knew, and she knew as a high school teacher, that the United States had done a really good job in its campaign to reduce smoking. Several kids would be aghast if they were accused of smoking a cigarette, as they would never consider it. However, kids did not view vaping in the same tone or tenor or with the same risk-level or concern. Representative Hannan continued that young people were price-sensitive in everything they did, and tobacco taxes had always been part of a regime to reduce youth participation in smoking. She reported that 80 percent of high schoolers that smoked e-cigarettes did not perceive it as a risky behavior. She asserted that vaping was just as risky to a person's long-term health as other smoking. The time to stop a person's addiction was prior to starting the habit. She thought price sensitivity was good if it kept a person from becoming a participant. Representative Hannan concluded that HB 110 would have the effect of keeping someone from starting to vape. It would reduce youth entering the smoking arena. As a side effect it would also improve the revenue picture for Alaska. It would not be a huge revenue producer but would be expected to produce about $2.5 million in revenues. She was available for questions. 9:28:29 AM Representative Thompson asked whether a military exemption could apply. Representative Hannan replied that the federal government had already changed the legal smoking age to 21 through an initiative, T-21, by President Trump. As of December 2019, the federal smoking age was 21, and the Department of Defense was required to restrict smoking on bases to anyone under 21 and restrict the sale of products to 21 years of age or older. Representative Thompson clarified that a person under 21 would be breaking the law if they were in possession of smoking products or caught smoking. He asked if he was correct. Representative Hannan responded in the affirmative. The federal law was currently 21. The bill would bring Alaska statutes into compliance and alignment with the federal government's actions in 2019. Representative Thompson wondered whether the state should also change its law for smoking Marijuana, as it did not conform with federal law. Representative Hannan responded that Alaska did not have to change the law around the smoking age. Alaska sometimes blatantly disregarded federal law. It was a policy question. She asserted it was a good thing to do in order to discourage young people from smoking. She indicated, when she first introduced a vape tax bill a couple of years ago, she did not include an age change. The age change came about from the federal government. It seemed appropriate to be aligned with the federal government. It also created a larger age gap between high schoolers and adults. By the time a person turned 21 they were in a different population setting. She thought the bill was constructive in discouraging smoking. Representative Thompson did not disagree. He planned on introducing an amendment. 9:32:11 AM Co-Chair Merrick noted Vice-Chair Ortiz had joined the meeting. Representative Wool shared some of the same concerns of Representative Thompson. He had more of a Libertarian approach to the issues. He grew up in an era where at 18 a person could vote, drink, smoke, join the army, or carry a gun. At 18 a person could go to war and kill people. He was of the mindset of someone being an adult at age 18. He stated that currently a person could smoke at age 18 and could purchase cigarettes at age 19 (to avoid tobacco products being brought into school). At his high school he could smoke outside. He came from a different generation. His problem was that if a person had to be 21 in order to buy or smoke tobacco or vape products, a 20-year old would be breaking the law. Representative Wool continued that the other problem he had was that if a person got caught, they would enter the criminal justice system. He did not think Alaska needed more kids in the criminal justice system. He also asked about enforcement and whether it would be selective. He suggested that minorities would more likely be charged with infractions. He was glad the fine was removed from the bill. However, an offender would be required to attend cessation classes. He did not have a problem with taxing vaping products. However, he did have a problem with a young person having to attend a class or entering the criminal justice system. He asked the bill sponsor to comment. 9:36:16 AM Representative Hannan thought most teenagers in Alaska first entered into the court system through parking infractions. Smoking infractions would be treated similarly as a civil penalty rather than a criminal penalty. a smoking infraction would be a ticketed offense much like parking violations unless they reached a criminal level. A violation for drunk driving was different than a parking violation. Traffic citations were part of the civil system. Ms. Mead from the Alaska Court System was available for questions. Representative Hannan noted Katie Steffens, a tobacco expert from the the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), was available online who might be able to address the comments made about the under 18 population receiving citations for tobacco violations. Representative Wool would be happy to hear from Ms. Stephens and wanted to hear from Ms. Mead as well. He disagreed that the infraction was like a parking ticket. Co-Chair Merrick indicated Ms. Mead was an invited testifier who would be presenting to the committee momentarily. 9:38:52 AM KATIE STEFFENS, DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER, TOBACCO PREVENTION AND CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via teleconference), deferred to Joe Darnell who could better address the question. Representative Wool did not know the numbers. He wondered who would pay for cessation classes. He suggested that if he were a kid, he would not want to have to pay for them. 9:40:28 AM STEPHANIE ANDREW, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN, thought Ms. Steffens spoke more to public health concerns. She suggested she speak to the question the representative had about the health impacts of an 18 year old versus a 21 year old. She suggested Ms. Mead could speak to the court implications. Representative Wool assumed the health impacts for an 18 year old and a 21 year old were similar. Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would move to a question from Representative Josephson and then would have Ms. Mead come to the table. Representative Josephson recalled Senator Stevens being involved in reform efforts. He noted two bills SB 15 [Legislation passed in 2018 - Short Title: E-Cigs/Tobacco/Nicotine and Minors; Sales] and SB 182 [Legislation introduced in 2020 - Short Title: Age for Nicotine/E-Cig; Tax E-Cig]. He recalled sitting in the Labor and Commerce Committee and looking at a PowerPoint about dismantling one of the vaping devices and what portion of the device could be sold. He asked for some context around other laws that have affected e-cigarettes. Representative Hannan did not believe SB 15 became law, as she and Senator Stevens had companion legislation. The bills were not identical, as there were two definition changes. Senator Stevens' bill mentioned e-hookahs while HB 110 referred to them as e-smoking devices. His bill changed the age and taxes and currently sat in the Senate Finance Committee. She asked if Representative Josephson wanted to know more about the devices. Representative Josephson would look to see what other recent bills became law and impacted the industry. He wanted to get an overall sense of the issue. Representative Hannan did not believe anything had been passed in the Alaska Legislature on the subject. She noted that when cannabis industry regulations and laws were put into place vaping of cannabis was taxed and vape products were defined in relation to cannabis taxation. She thought Representative Josephson's recollection might be from 6 years prior. Vice-Chair Ortiz thought there was a reference made to Mr. Darnell who might be able to address enforcement. Co-Chair Merrick replied that the committee could hear from Mr. Darnell following Ms. Mead's testimony. The committee had been joined by Representative Edgmon. 9:44:01 AM NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, thought the concern was centered on AS.11.76.105 on page 2, starting at line 21 of the bill. The provision made possession of tobacco, electronic smoking products, or nicotine products by someone under 21 a violation. The provision was being changed from age 19 to age 21. Electronic smoking products were added to the provision 2 years prior. The section was enforced by local law enforcement officers and Alaska State Troopers who could issue a citation for a violation. The court system received such citations in some years but none in other years. Occasionally, the court system would receive a bubble of citations likely related to a sting operation. She could supply specific data to anyone interested. There was a contrasting provision in AS.11.76.100 through AS.11.76.109 giving authority to the Division of Behavioral Health within the Department of Health and Social Services to issue citations. She elaborated that DHSS could cite vendors and sellers and take license action if there was a conviction. Ms. Mead continued that AS.11.76.105, the possession of a minor, was a violation which required a mandatory court appearance. Some traffic citations allowed for a person to send in a payment for a fine and plead guilty to close their case. However, possession of a minor required a court appearance. The statute outlined that a person would be subject to a fine of between zero and $500. Ms. Mead pointed to page 15 of the bill which stated the court could refer the defendant to a tobacco education program in lieu of a fine. The court system had some concern with the provision, as it did not keep track of tobacco education programs. If the court ordered a minor or a 20 year old to participate in such a class, it would be lacking information about enforcing the provision and any necessary follow-up. The court was not in a position to provide information to a person ordered to take a class. The court was not sure if the programs were available statewide. She reiterated the provision was somewhat concerning for the court system. She was available for questions. 9:48:13 AM Vice-Chair Ortiz responded to Ms. Mead's comment about the statute requiring a court appearance. He wondered if Representative Wool had a valid concern about a young person being entered into the legal system creating a permanent record. Ms. Mead replied that anyone who was issued a ticket received a minor offence. A person under 21 who received a violation for possession of tobacco or electronic cigarette products would need to appear in court. Whereas, a person receiving a traffic violation would not necessarily be required to appear in court. Representative Hannan relayed that the violation was already in statute; only the age would change from 19 to 21. The bill was not creating the violation. Representative Josephson spoke of a bill by Senator Micciche offered in a prior legislative session. The bill would have softened the penalties for a minor consuming alcohol. He wondered if such penalties required court appearances. Ms. Mead replied in the affirmative. Representative Josephson suggested the two violations paralleled each other in terms of court appearances. Ms. Mead responded, "Somewhat." She explained that the processing of a minor consuming alcohol changed to a straight violation in 2016 with the passage of SB 165 [Short Title: Alcohol: Board; Minors; Marijuana Checks]. The underaged person received a citation. There was an accompanying oddity with the violation penalty that stated the penalty would be $500. However, a young person had the option of taking an alcohol education course and having their fine reduced to $50. 9:52:18 AM Representative Wool asked if an alcohol violation would stay on a person's record. If so, he wondered if there was an option to get the violation removed from their record under certain conditions. Ms. Mead explained that everything stayed on a person's official criminal record in Alaska. Expungement was not an option. There was a special provision for minors consuming in SB 165 that specified the records could not appear on Court View. However, they would remain in a person's official record maintained by Department of Public Safety. Representative Wool responded to Representative Hannan's comment. He understood the law was already in existence but did not support the bill or more kids going to court. He was skeptical about the costs of the mandated classes and wondered if a new industry would pop up. He was curious how classes would be offered and paid for. Representative Hannan would ask DHSS for a list of programs. She referred to page 15 regarding deferment to class. There was a member in another committee who did not want a fine imposed. Their approach to amending the bill was to do away with the violations completely and to simply impose a tobacco education program instead. She had heard tobacco education programs were available in some places in Alaska. She believed Katie Steffens could provide additional information. Ms. Steffens spoke to how the program was currently structured. The program had 23 grant-funded organizations throughout the state who helped support the tobacco prevention and education efforts in Alaskan communities. She spoke of the grantees going into classrooms to talk with kids. The program also had statewide partners such as the American Lung Association who offered online courses such as its' In-Depth program. The program offered a youth component and a component for parents or guardians to access information about certain products through the Alaska Tobacco Quit Line. She indicated that the community- based efforts helped in preventing kids from starting a bad habit. 9:56:47 AM JOE DARNELL, INVESTIGATOR III, TOBACCO SECTION, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via teleconference), asked Vice-Chair Ortiz to repeat his question. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked, under the current situation and absent the passage of the bill, what enforcement looked like in relation to enforcing the state's regulations around tobacco - specifically the possession of tobacco. He asked if it would change in any way with the adoption of the bill. Mr. Darnell responded that the department did not administer enforcement citations. Rather, the Alaska State Troopers and local police officers issued citations. He spoke with several local police departments and found that sometimes there would be no citations and suddenly several citations. Typically, the increase was due to the school administration noticing a problem and requesting that the school resource officer start issuing tickets. He thought raising the age possession would help with issues at the school. It would create a greater age gap between high school students and 21-year-olds making it more difficult for kids to get tobacco products. He suggested that a 21-year-old was less likely to hang out with high school kids. The peer-to-peer aspect would go away. He also noted for retailers it would be much easier to be in line with federal law. Representative Wool noted Ms. Mead reported up to 80 minors under 19 had been cited. He asked for the make-up of the kids that had been cited. He opined that minorities and lower income folks were more likely to have to go through the court system rather than be expulsed in a non-criminal way. He asked if it was the same for tobacco citations. Ms. Mead deferred to Mr. Darnell. 10:00:55 AM Mr. Darnell responded that some schools in Anchorage had requested that the school resource officers issue citations. One of the schools was South High School in the Hillside area - a wealthy neighborhood in Anchorage. Representative Josephson had seen many national stories that e-cigarettes were more dangerous than regular cigarettes. He wondered if he was accurate. Representative Hannan indicated Representative Josephson was correct. In 2018 or 2019 there had been a flurry across the United Stated of black market vape cartridges that resulted in some lung damage for young people. However, they were not commercially produced nicotine or cannabis. They were a hybrid garage-manufactured on a large scale. She did not want to engage in what she saw as issues on the periphery about taxation of vape products. There were certainly people who advocated that they were healthier than cigarettes. However, there was a significant amount of research that showed they were damaging. She noted that the Alaska statutes on taxing tobacco products exempted cessation products from that taxation such as nicotine gum and patches. If vaping was found to be a cessation strategy and devise by the FDA, they would be exempt from the taxes. She thought it was the reason why Alaska taxed the products and why it tried to defer young people from using them. She did not think vaping was a health-producing activity. Co-Chair Merrick thanked the bill sponsor and the invited testifiers. She reviewed the agenda for the afternoon. Representative Thompson asked if an amendment deadline had been set for HB 110. Co-Chair Merrick responded in the negative. HB 110 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.