Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/05/2021 09:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB155 | |
| HB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 110 Supporting Documents 4.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Sectional Summary 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Summary of Changes - 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Sponsor Statement 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Opposition - Alex McDonald, 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Public Testimony by 050421.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Opposition - Shaun D'Sylva, 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Support Received as of 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 155 Sectional Analysis 3.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Sponsor Statement 3.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Testimony Office of Public Advocacy 4.3.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 5/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |