Legislature(2015 - 2016)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/17/2015 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB15 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 75-MARIJUANA REG;CLUBS;MUNIS;LOCAL OPT ELECT
4:14:11 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of HB 75. "An Act
relating to the registration of marijuana establishments by
municipalities; relating to the definition of 'marijuana';
clarifying standards for personal use of marijuana by persons 21
years of age or older; prohibiting the public consumption of
marijuana; authorizing the registration of marijuana clubs;
relating to established villages and to local option elections
regarding the operation of marijuana establishments; and
providing for an effective date." She asked for a motion to
adopt the Senate committee substitute (CS), version R.
4:14:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL motioned to adopt Senate CS for HB 75, labeled
29-LS0345\R, as the working document.
CHAIR MCGUIRE found no objection and version R was before the
committee.
4:15:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, speaking as Chair of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee stated that HB
75 provides the definitions and guidance that municipal
attorneys and mayors requested in order to adopt local
ordinances relating to the marijuana initiative. She said the
bill follows Title 4.
4:17:03 PM
At ease from 4:17 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
4:19:27 PM
HEALTH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Tilton, reviewed the more
substantive and policy changes between version U.A that passed
the House and version R for HB 75.
Page 2, lines 21-23, stipulates that a person may
possess not more than 24 marijuana plants for personal
use.
Page 3, lines 8-10, states that notwithstanding the 24
plant limit established in the bill, municipalities,
by ordinance, may limit the number of marijuana plants
per dwelling to fewer than 24 plants.
Section 6 on page 3 changes from 10 days to five days
the timeframe for the board to notify a municipality
of receipt of an application or renewal application to
operate a marijuana establishment.
Page 7 has conforming amendments to the timeline for
the issuance of registrations.
Section 8 on page 4, lines 6-12, reinserts language
amending AS 17.38.100(d). It clarifies the board
process in the event there are more applicants seeking
registration of a marijuana establishment than are
available in the municipality.
Section 20 on page 9, lines 7-8, stipulates that after
a local village has had a local election and chose to
ban commercial marijuana establishments, nothing in
that ban would prohibit any of the activities provided
for in the personal use statute, AS 17.38.020.
Page 10, lines 20-22, provides that the supreme court
shall establish a bail schedule that allows
individuals to pay fines for certain violations
without a court appearance. This change was made at
the request of the Court System.
Page 11, line 15, clarifies that "manufacture" has the
meaning given in AS 11.71.900. He read the statute and
summarized that it means that growing for personal use
is not considered manufacturing.
MR. HILYARD offered to answer questions.
4:24:15 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE found no questions and opened public testimony.
4:24:27 PM
BRUCE SCHULTE, Spokesman, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis
Legislation, stated support for HB 75. Noting the potential
amendment to remove marijuana clubs as a type of marijuana
business, he highlighted that municipalities and boroughs have
articulated interest in having that type of marijuana
businesses. He suggested the committee leave the local option in
the bill and clarify the operating parameters through the
regulatory process, before any permits are issued.
He said the Coalition supports the six plant per person limit,
but he understands law enforcement's desire to have a bright
line for the total number of plants in a single dwelling. If the
concern is that people might try and get around the regulations
and have a small commercial growing operation in their home, he
suggested a better strategy might be to provide an easy entry
into a regulated market. That may address the problem, whereas
allowing municipalities to set the limit creates confusion when
someone moves from one community to another.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he said that communities have
specifically asked for marijuana clubs.
MR. SCHULTE answered yes; Fairbanks is specifically looking at
allowing that type of business.
4:28:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that communities would have to
adopt an ordinance to allow marijuana clubs.
MR. SCHULTE offered his expectation that if they're allowed
under state law, communities additionally would impose
boundaries so they'd have control over whether or not a business
received a permit to operate.
4:29:01 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed concern about what happens after
someone is served marijuana in a marijuana club because
presumably they'd be "high" and couldn't be served any more. He
asked "What is a marijuana club?"
MR. SCHULTE said he envisions a membership-only private
establishment for people 21 and older where people could spend
time with their friends and consume marijuana. The establishment
likely would have some other types of entertainment that's the
focus of the gathering, but it would be "marijuana friendly." He
reiterated the suggestion to leave the local option for
marijuana clubs in the bill and clarify the operating parameters
through the regulatory process.
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that over half the Senate is cosponsoring
a bill that prohibits smoking in places where Alaskans are
employed. He asked how he sees that working with a marijuana
club.
MR. SCHULTE replied it depends on how that bill evolves. If it
allows e-cigarettes, there is an analogous method of consumption
of marijuana that would be compatible. If the bill didn't allow
e-cigarettes it might exclude marijuana clubs unless they
confined consumption to edibles, he said.
SENATOR MICCICHE recalled that marijuana clubs were not
mentioned in the initiative.
MR. SCHULTE agreed they were not discussed in the initiative. He
said this was added at the request of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough and it's a business model that has existed in Amsterdam
for decades. He added that he envisions an opportunity in the
rule-making process to define business types that weren't
discussed in the initiative but may become part of the
legitimate, regulated industry.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if someone could carry a firearm into a
marijuana club.
MR. SCHULTE replied he didn't know but he'd look to what's done
with bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.
4:33:58 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Alaska Court
System, stated that the Court System asked the sponsor to
include the language that appears on page 10, lines 20-22. It
requires the Alaska Supreme Court to put the violations on the
bail forfeiture schedule so people can pay their tickets online
or by mail without a mandatory court appearance. That is fairly
standard for a number of minor offenses in the statute, she
said.
4:34:53 PM
JOE HARDENBROOK, Mayor's Office, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
testified in support of the provision in HB 75 to allow
marijuana clubs. He expressed appreciation for the language and
the ability to regulate the clubs at the local level. This
aligns with Article X of the Constitution of the State of Alaska
that provides maximum local self government. Including the
language in HB 75 allows municipalities and local governments to
decide whether or not to allow these consumption venues within
their boundaries, he said.
He voiced concern with Section 16. It says that a registration
issued by a municipality is subject to state regulation, which
is contrary to the initiative language and its intent. He
requested the committee amend HB 75 to match the tenets of the
original initiative.
MR. HARDENBROOK also requested the committee amend Section 19 to
make the powers of a borough area wide. This would allow a city
within a borough to be more restrictive, but not less
restrictive with regard to commercial facilities. This is in
line with the consideration of zoning authority, which is a
borough power.
He pointed out that 60 percent of the residents in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough voted in favor of Proposition 2, which is
more than voted in the election for the legislature. He said it
could therefore be argued that Fairbanks area voters were more
sure of their stance on the marijuana issue than they were on
who they would choose to represent them in the legislature.
4:38:48 PM
DENNIS WHEELER, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage,
testified in support of HB 75. He described the legislation as a
good vehicle for giving local governments the opportunity to
decide how to regulate marijuana. With regard to marijuana
clubs, he stressed the importance of a local option to opt in or
opt out or provide local licensing regulations.
4:40:25 PM
AMY MEAD, Municipal Attorney, City and Borough of Juneau,
testified in support of HB 75. She noted that the CBJ Assembly
submitted written testimony. She emphasized the importance of
giving municipalities tools to reasonably and effectively
regulate this industry, and expressed appreciation for the
outreach and being included in the process.
4:41:59 PM
TIM HINTERBERGER, Chair, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like
Alcohol, stated that he is testifying in support of HB 75 but he
has potential amendments to suggest. He expressed support for
the previous comments in support of granting municipalities
local control to authorize marijuana clubs. He discussed the two
primary issues with the current committee substitute, version R.
First, the CS appears to grant municipalities the discretion to
set a lower cap on the number of plants in a household, but it
doesn't say how low. Unless the wording is changed, a
municipality could use this mechanism to prevent individuals
from growing any plants. The second concern is that the current
language does not set a timeline for when the marijuana board
would need to address an application for a marijuana
establishment that a municipality protests. He emphasized that
the 90-day deadline set out in the ballot measure should not be
altered.
MR. HINTERBERGER said his final suggestion relates to the fact
that SB 30 doesn't appear to be moving. That bill has important
language setting a civil penalty rather than a criminal sanction
for the possession of marijuana by young adults. He stated
support for inserting language in HB 75 that would have that
same effect. He noted he submitted written comments.
4:45:32 PM
FRANK BERARDI, Chair, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis
Legislation, testified in support of HB 75 and emphasized the
importance of local control for onsite consumption for marijuana
establishments. This will reduce public consumption of marijuana
and provide tourists an outlet for consuming cannabis. He said
visitors can't smoke in their hotel, in public, inside a
facility, and they can't take anything they buy home with them.
He maintained that the way to have a viable cannabis industry
that draws tourists and brings dollars to the state is to allow
onsite consumption facilities.
Pointing out that the Fairbanks North Star Borough supports
local control for onsite consumption, he opined that when
citizens voted to regulate marijuana like alcohol they also
intended for it to be regulated like alcohol. "We want to see a
viable and money-making marijuana industry, and this is the
first step towards making that happen," he said.
4:47:38 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked what he meant when he said tourists can't
take marijuana home, because that's not permitted by any laws.
MR. BERARDI replied there is no legal avenue for a tourist to
take part in Alaska's legal cannabis industry if they can't take
it home and they can't consume it in a legal cannabis
establishment. He surmised that this would lead to more public
consumption and the possibility of smuggling.
SENATOR MICCICHE said the initiative never mentioned clubs and
he believes that's because they're challenging in a number of
ways, public health among them. Employees would more than likely
be exposed constantly to plant particulate matter, and that
doesn't sound healthy.
MR. BERARDI responded that it could be mitigated with the use of
a proper HVAC system and carbon filter so that smoke isn't
lingering and the smell isn't projected into the street. "It is
possible for an employee to work in an onsite consumption
facility without actually being exposed to cannabis," he said.
4:50:25 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony.
4:50:40 PM
SENATOR COGHILL motioned to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-
LS0345\R.2.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 75(JUD), Draft Version "R"
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "authorizing the registration of marijuana
clubs;"
Page 5, line 25:
Delete "[OR]"
Insert "or"
Delete ", or marijuana clubs"
Page 7, line 26:
Delete "retail marijuana stores, or marijuana
clubs"
Insert "or retail marijuana stores"
Page 11, lines 5 - 8:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, lines 16 - 18:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 11, lines 23 - 24:
Delete "; "public place" does not include a
marijuana club"
CHAIR MCGUIRE objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that the amendment removes the option
for marijuana clubs. He reasoned that it's a matter of public
safety because so much is unknown about the effect of marijuana
intoxication. He said he agrees with the argument about local
control, but the legislature needs to provide better direction.
This will allow the opportunity to figure things out before
municipalities put regulations in place.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked the net effect of the proposed change on
page 5, line 25.
SENATOR COGHILL replied it removes the reference to marijuana
clubs, which aligns with his view that municipalities and
boroughs need more direction before these clubs are referenced
in statute.
4:55:37 PM
MR. HILYARD said this was an effort to be responsive to
municipalities, but it was probably premature.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she's inclined to support the amendment as a
middle ground. There's nothing in the amendment that says a
municipality can't adopt regulations, but it sends a message
that the legislature recognizes that the matter needs more
study.
MR. HILYARD agreed, adding that the amendment returns the bill
to the original initiative language.
4:57:12 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated support for maintaining the verbatim
language of the initiative.
SENATOR COSTELLO observed that it's written in the affirmative
and then it lists the things that are prohibited. She asked if
something that isn't on the list is inherently not prohibited.
MR. HILYARD replied the legal opinions agree that the amendment
returns the bill to the language in the ballot initiative, which
is silent on marijuana clubs.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if he'd contemplated how to respond if
someone submits an application for a marijuana club.
MR. HILYARD responded that an application for a commercial
establishment isn't possible if it doesn't exist in statute or
regulation.
5:00:48 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE maintained her objection to Amendment 1 and
recessed the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to a
call of the chair. [The committee reconvened on 4/18/15.]