Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/12/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB70 | |
| SB74 | |
| HB149 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 70 | ||
| = | SB 74 | ||
| = | HB 149 | ||
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 149(JUD)
"An Act relating to controlled substances regarding the crimes
of manslaughter and misconduct involving a controlled
substance; relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine and
to the sale, possession, and delivery of certain substances
and precursors used in the manufacture of methamphetamine;
relating to listing certain anabolic steroids as controlled
substances; relating to the listing of property that
constitutes an illegal drug manufacturing site; amending Rule
41, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
10:14:13 AM
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt committee substitute Version 24-
LS0596\Z as the working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for discussion.
DARWIN PETERSON, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, informed the
Committee that, "in essence" the Version "Z" committee substitute
is a combination of HB 149 and SB 74-CRIMES INVOLVING
MARIJUANA/OTHER DRUGS, both of which relate to controlled
substances.
Mr. Peterson informed the Committee that the committee substitute
also included Committee action in regards to SB 74 and SB 70-CRIMES
INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES that had occurred on Tuesday,
January 10, 2006, as follows.
Language adopted to SB 74 by Amendment #1 was incorporated
into this bill in Sec. 2 page two line nine following
"Alaska." as follows.
"The Legislature has also considered its obligation to carry
out the intent of the voters of Alaska in recriminalizing
marijuana by ballot initiative in 1990, and in defeating
ballot initiatives to again decriminalize marijuana in 2000
and 2004."
In addition, language that was adopted in Amendment #1 to SB
74 was inserted into Sec. 2(9) on page four following "sell;"
on line seven as follows.
"the street value of marijuana today is between $350 and $550
per ounce; the legislature heard evidence that possession of
four ounces or more indicates an intent to distribute; and
therefore this is the appropriate amount to justify a felony
offense"
And furthermore, the following language was added after
"(Alaska App. 2004)" in Sec. 2(9) page four line eleven as per
the adoption of Amendment #1 to SB 74.
"to invalidate search warrants for commercial marijuana-
growing and,"
Mr. Peterson specified that language was deleted in Sec. 8 page 10
following line 2 "that would have made the possession of marijuana
while driving a Class A Misdemeanor". Language was also deleted
from Sec. 9 page 10 following line 13 that "would have made
possession of marijuana as a passenger in a motor vehicle a Class B
Misdemeanor. Both of these deletions are also the result of
Amendment #1 to SB 74".
Mr. Peterson recalled testimony from Mr. Guaneli from the
Department of Law that specified that these deletions "would serve
to streamline the bill since this conduct" is already provided
under Alaska Statutes.
Mr. Peterson stated that the following new section was incorporated
into Sec. 12(b) on page 12 lines 22 through 27 per Amendment #2 to
SB 70. This language would be required to insure the exemptions to
the six-gram limit on pseudoephedrine products for such things as
lodges and schools.
(2) more than six but less than 24 grams of a listed chemical
identified in (a) of this section in an ordinary course of a
legitimate business or nonprofit organization, or as an
employee of a legitimate business or nonprofit organization,
operating a camp, lodge, school, day care center, treatment
center, other organized group activity, and the location or
nature of the activity , or the age of the participants makes
it impractical for the participants in the activity to obtain
medicinal products.
Mr. Peterson communicated that per Amendment #2 to SB 74, the
entirety of Sec. 16, page 15 lines 5 through 31 was added to HB
149. This language would "provide protection for the personal use
of marijuana in a person's home by imposing a fine rather than jail
time for the first two convictions."
* Sec. 16. AS 12.55.135 is amended by adding a new subsection
to read:
(k) A court may not impose a sentence of imprisonment or
suspended imprisonment for possession of marijuana in
violation of AS 11.71.060 if the defendant alleges, and the
court finds, that the defendant was not under formal or
informal probation or parole conditions in this or another
jurisdiction at the time of the offense; that the defendant
possessed the marijuana for the defendant's personal use
within the defendant's permanent or temporary residence; and
that the defendant has not been previously convicted more than
once in this or another jurisdiction for possession of
marijuana. If the defendant has not been previously convicted
as described in this subsection, the maximum unsuspended fine
that the court may impose is $500. If the defendant has been
previously convicted once as described in this subsection, the
maximum unsuspended fine that the court may impose is $1,000.
In this subsection,
(1) "permanent or temporary residence" means a
permanent structure adopted for overnight accommodation;
"permanent or temporary residence" does not include
(A) vehicles, tents, prisons or other
correctional facilities, residential treatment facilities, or
shelters operated by a charitable organization or a government
agency;
(B) any place where the defendant's possession
or use of marijuana violated established rules for residents,
such as a ban on smoking or a ban on marijuana or other
controlled substances;
(2) "previously convicted" means the defendant entered a
plea of guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere, or has been
found guilty by a court or jury, regardless of whether the
conviction was set aside under AS 12.55.085 or a similar
procedure in another jurisdiction, of possession of marijuana;
"previously convicted" does not include a judgment that has
been reversed or vacated by a court.
Co-Chair Green asked that this section be further explained.
Mr. Peterson stated that this language would address the criticism
that has been received that this legislation would negatively
affect the recreational user. It would "clarify that the
Committee's intent is to give the Department of Public Safety the
tools they need to go after the large marijuana growers." An
individual who was "caught using marijuana in the privacy of their
own home would not be faced with any sort of a jail time. There
would only be a fine."
10:18:10 AM
Mr. Peterson stated that per Committee discussion on Tuesday,
January 10, 2006, new language to address the concern regarding
emancipated minors and members of the military under the age of 18
has been incorporated into Sec. 18(c) page 16, lines 20 and 21 in
order "for those individuals to be treated in the same manner as an
adult".
Mr. Peterson noted that the final change to HB 149 would involve
the addition of new language as reflected in Sec. 18(g) on page 17
lines 8 and 9 that reads as follows.
(g) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a municipality
may not enact or enforce an ordinance that is inconsistent
with this section.
Mr. Peterson noted that this section would prohibit a local
government from "preempting State law with regard to the sale or
dispensation of restricted ephedrine products".
10:18:52 AM
Mr. Peterson stated that the rest of the bill is identical to the
work that the Committee conducted in regards to SB 70 and SB 74 on
January 10, 2006.
10:19:11 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether there were any questions regarding the
bill; specifically whether there were any questions about "the
merger of these two drug enforcement bills". The bills were merged
"for convenience and hearings … as they have so much in common".
10:19:34 AM
Senator Olson concurred that the issues have many similar
properties: "the addictiveness, the dependency, the mind altering
psychoactive component". However, he voiced difficulty in regards
to the public policy question, respectful of the fact that there
are two different substances and that, unlike methamphetamine,
there is a medical prescriptive component to marijuana.
10:21:00 AM
Co-Chair Green, while noting that she would defer to Mr. Guaneli of
the Department of Law, communicated that the purpose of combining
the marijuana and methamphetamine bills was to address "the final
result" of the products, specifically their "harm" and the efforts
having to be exerted by the Department of Public Safety, health
officials, and others "to curb those".
10:21:30 AM
Senator Olson acknowledged Co-Chair Green's comments. His
reservation would be that combining the two bills might jeopardize
a doctor's medical license were the doctor to prescribe medical
marijuana.
Co-Chair Green asked Mr. Guaneli to speak to Senator Olson's
concern.
10:21:54 AM
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
informed the Committee that this bill would address three
controlled substances: marijuana, methamphetamine, and anabolic
steroids. The fact that the bill's title includes the reference to
controlled substances would allow the bills to be combined as that
term would meet the single subject requirement required by law.
Mr. Guaneli continued that separate State Statute "directly
relating to medical use" would address the question pertaining to
the medical use of marijuana. This bill would be limited to illegal
rather than legal uses of controlled substances.
In response to a comment from Co-Chair Green, Mr. Guaneli
reiterated that "there is good grounds for combining the bills and
that the medical aspect is a completely separate issue dealt with
in separate law."
10:23:23 AM
Senator Olson stated that while the legal aspect might be
substantiated, he continued to have concerns in regard to the
public policy issue. He pointed out that while there are medical
reasons to prescribe such things as cocaine, that substance has not
been included in this bill.
10:23:58 AM
Mr. Guaneli voiced appreciation of Senator Olson's public policy
concern; however, specified that he had been directed to address
the legal aspects of the bill. The Alaska Court System has provided
"broad authority to the Legislature to consider any number of
measures of public concerns as long as it fits within a single
subject…" The Courts have provided the broadest authority in
regards to issues involving health and safety concerns.
Mr. Guaneli pointed out that testimony has supported the fact that
the State has a meth, marijuana, and anabolic steroid problem. The
effort to address all of those issues in one bill might "raise
policy questions" but "is certainly legitimate and an efficient way
to proceed".
10:25:21 AM
Senator Hoffman commented that marijuana has been a controversial
issue in the State for more than a decade. Continuing, he noted
that there was "broad support" for the original version of HB 149,
which focused on meth. That is the issue that might cause some
problems for some people. To that point, he asked that
Representative Jay Ramras, the sponsor of HB 149, provide input to
the Committee.
10:26:13 AM
Co-Chair Green conveyed that in discussions with people about
whether combining the two bills might provide a workable solution
the response had been favorable.
10:26:37 AM
Co-Chair Green stated that she is looking forward to the process
and "arriving at a solution" through which to immediately address
the dilemma the State is facing.
Senator Bunde agreed that these are all controlled substances. He
noted that each of them might have some medical application to
which a competent physician would be aware.
10:27:28 AM
Co-Chair Green clarified that the focus of the bill is the illegal
use of these controlled substances.
Mr. Guaneli informed the Committee that there is "a very narrow
medical use for methamphetamine" in that there is an FDA approved
product, which is used to treat severe cases of obesity. He noted
however, that the effectiveness of that product is such that it is
not used very often. Nonetheless, this would support the fact that
a manufacturer could "carve out a little niche for a product". The
illegal use of the drug "far outweighs its legal use".
10:28:39 AM
Senator Olson shared that in his experience, prescribed
methamphetamine is very effective in treating obesity; however its
side affects are the issue.
10:29:00 AM
Co-Chair Green removed her objection to the committee substitute.
There being no further objection, Version "Z" was ADOPTED as the
working document.
Conceptual Amendment #1: This amendment deletes Sec. 18(g) on page
17, lines eight and nine. The language being deleted reads as
follows.
(g) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a municipality
may not enact or enforce an ordinance that is inconsistent
with this section.
Senator Bunde moved Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Wilken objected.
Senator Bunde stated that the organization of government in the
State allows for a multitude of ways to address issues and problems
that arise, including "some fervent local control" as supported by
the fact that some communities in the State do not allow alcohol
and that there are different taxing levels on tobacco. Thus, it "is
unusual" that a provision would be included in this bill that would
prohibit a local community from "changing the law on marijuana and
methamphetamine or steroids". Local people should be allowed the
option to make "more stringent laws" in regards to these substances
if so desired. Alaska Legislators are often frustrated that federal
law limits their ability to make decisions on the State level.
10:32:07 AM
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this might be the first time he has
"spoken against local control". This legislation is "a big step" in
the effort against these substances. The hope is that society would
hear the message that these substances "do much more harm than
good". His concern is that were contiguous communities to adopt
different rules and law, there would be confusion, including the
fact that retailers operating in more than one community would be
required to conduct different training rules. Furthermore, there
could be enforcement problems.
Co-Chair Wilken continued that were local communities able to
impose different laws, a person conducting these activities might
choose to operate in a community having looser restrictions than
another. The fact that this is a Statewide issue would support
there being a single common rule.
10:33:49 AM
Co-Chair Wilken, characterizing this legislation as being "a big
step", stated that the issue could be readdressed in the future.
The confusion that would be created by allowing local communities
to make their own laws and the concern that one community's laws
might negatively affect another community would undermine the
Statewide effort.
10:34:42 AM
Senator Hoffman spoke in support of allowing local control. This
amendment would enable communities to instill "higher protections".
People move to other communities for many reasons including
different sales tax amounts and commerce reasons.
Senator Hoffman informed the Committee that at a conference he and
Senator Bunde had attended, there was support for requiring
logbooks at retail outlets. While requiring that pseudoephedrine
products be kept behind a counter would reduce the problem, the
logs "would provide more protection or reduction in the abuse of
this drug".
10:36:13 AM
Co-Chair Green clarified that the provision included in Sec 18(g)
would only apply to meth-related products.
10:36:36 AM
Senator Stedman also spoke in support of the amendment, as he is
unconvinced that this legislation is "quite going far enough." The
State of Oregon recently passed legislation requiring
pseudoephedrine to be a prescription drug. Unless this drug could
be controlled in our communities, the issue would require
redressing.
10:37:09 AM
Senator Olson stated that this amendment would have a positive
aspect, as it would allow "a proactive community" to implement
ordinances that could assist in "diverting" problems that might be
experienced by a neighboring community. In addition, law
enforcement efforts in many of the communities he represents are
conducted by the Alaska State Troopers. Oftentimes the laws that
they must uphold are of a different magnitude to those of the local
ordinances. A local police force should not be inhibited were a
community to desire to become more proactive.
Senator Olson also pointed out that due to the fact that meth "is
such a rising issue, federal law might preempt our State laws in
the very near future".
10:38:48 AM
Co-Chair Green understood that the federal policy on meth "is tied
to the Patriot Act" and as that Act develops, "a totally different
set of rules" might come into play.
10:39:07 AM
Senator Bunde understood Co-Chair Wilken concerns; however, he
noted that local control is currently allowed in regards to
alcohol. While people might choose to live in one community verses
another due to the local alcohol ordinances, there has been no
effort to remove local control in that regard. Were it found that
removing the local control prohibition in regards to this bill was
in error, it could be readdressed.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Olson, Senator
Stedman, and Senator Bunde
OPPOSED: Co-Chair Wilken and Co-Chair Green
The motion PASSED (5-2)
Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
10:40:42 AM
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes the Findings language in Sec.
2(7) page 3 lines 23--26. The language being deleted reads as
follows.
(7) a high percentage of persons arrested in this state,
including adults and juveniles who commit violent offenses,
have marijuana in their system at the time of the arrest; the
percentage is particularly high for adults arrested for
domestic violence who test positive for marijuana at the time
of the arrest;
Senator Stedman moved for consideration of Amendment #2. He
reiterated his earlier comments that some of the Findings were
extreme. This Finding insinuates that the use of marijuana would
lead to violence; however, earlier testimony would not support that
position. "Clearly marijuana has a tendency" to sedate people as
opposed to making them violent. Removal of this language would keep
the issue "on point".
Senator Bunde stated that rather than interpreting this Finding to
indicate that marijuana use causes people to commit violent
offenses and domestic violence, his interpretation is that people
who do those things "may also be marijuana users". Therefore he
would not deem the Finding as being "factually incorrect".
10:42:42 AM
Mr. Guaneli communicated that, "there's nothing in that Finding
that says that marijuana causes violence". He voiced appreciation
for Dr. Earlywine's comments and characterized him as "a very
knowledgeable and thoughtful witness" whose remarks before the
Committee were "very candid and he conceded a lot of points about
marijuana". Nonetheless, there is a difference between studies
conducted in a controlled laboratory setting and those provoked in
a real setting. This Finding is based on a long-term study of
people in the Anchorage jail that was conducted by the University
of Alaska. Urine samples of those arrested were tested for
marijuana. The findings of the total male arrestees found that
approximately 50-percent tested positive for marijuana. The percent
of males arrested on Domestic Violence (DV) charges who tested
positive for marijuana "went up significantly" to approximately 70-
percent. That is what is presented in this Finding. The findings of
the University of Alaska study concluded that a significantly
greater percentage of people arrested for DV tested positive for
marijuana. "The point" that should be recognized is that "most
domestic violence occurs in the home; that's where people are
smoking marijuana; that's where domestic violence abuse occurs, and
there's" some unknown "correlation". This is "the actual finding in
Alaska today".
10:45:33 AM
Senator Stedman opined that Mr. Guaneli's comments supported his
point. While 50-percent of the men tested in the Anchorage jail
study tested positive for marijuana, 50-percent did not. In his
experience in Southeast Alaska, "alcohol is much more pervasive"
than marijuana. He ventured to guess that the people who tested
positive in the University of Alaska jail study also "tested
positive for other illegal drugs and most likely alcohol also."
Alcohol use would be more common in DV situations in Southeast
Alaska. He would support moving away from the beliefs that were
commonplace in the 1960s and 1970s "and move to be more on-point in
this area of the bill and the message that is being sent" to
marijuana users and youth. "The generational disconnect" should be
acknowledged. The intent would be to convey "a clean concise
message" to people, particularly youth, that this product has far
reaching affects on them. He referenced earlier testimony regarding
the impact of marijuana use on youth's memories and their ability
to absorb new information. Such "impacts could last for generations
in terms" of what experiences might have been lost as a result of
marijuana use at one's younger age. The language in Sec. 2(7)
should be excluded from the bill.
10:48:27 AM
AT EASE: 10:48:42 AM / 10:49:39 AM
Without objection, Senator Stedman WITHDREW Amendment #2.
Amendment #3: This amendment deletes "the percentage is
particularly high for adults arrested for domestic violence who
test positive for marijuana at the time of the arrest;" following
";" in Sec. 2(7) on page 3 lines 25 and 26.
Senator Stedman moved to adopt Amendment #3.
Senator Olson asked whether Senator Stedman is implying that the
language being omitted is incorrect.
Senator Stedman allowed that while "there might be validities" to
the language being offered for deletion, he was "more concerned
with the message that it sends". An effort should be made to make
the Findings and the message "more on point". The point is better
made by eliminating the language proposed in Amendment #3 as
opposed to deleting the entirety of Sec. 2(7) as was proposed in
Amendment #2.
Senator Stedman concluded that the adoption of this amendment would
not impact "the ability of law enforcement agencies to do what
needs to get done".
10:52:45 AM
Senator Bunde doubted that few 15-year olds would be reading the
findings in Sec. 2.
Senator Bunde characterized domestic violence as being "a huge
problem" in the State. The University of Alaska findings that
indicate the majority of people who commit DV also have evidence of
marijuana in their system should not be ignored. He opined that if
anything should be removed from Sec. 2(7) it should be the first
portion rather than the second portion of the Finding.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Stedman, Senator Hoffman, and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde, Senator Dyson, Senator Olson, and Co-Chair
Wilken
The motion FAILED (3-4)
Amendment #3 FAILED to be adopted.
10:54:16 AM
Senator Olson observed there being seven references to Alaska
Natives in the Findings presented in Sec. 2 pages two and three.
Testimony pointed out that there was no difference in the results
of studies relating to Alaska Natives verses other population
groups within the State. He questioned whether there was intent to
target the Alaska Native population, as there are no references to
other minorities such as Blacks. Therefore, he asked to the reason
for including these references.
10:55:40 AM
Co-Chair Green noted that each year, there is discussion during
Legislative drug, alcohol, and substance abuse hearings about "the
designation of great sums of money on a racial basis" to Native
Alaskan and Rural Alaska programs. This could not continue to be
done while claiming "that it's not a problem".
10:56:10 AM
Mr. Guaneli stated that this Finding was not intended to "denigrate
Alaska Natives or any other group"; rather the intent was "to make
the case that we're dealing with a problem in Alaska". Marijuana in
this State "is particularly potent". In order to address the issue
fairly, the fact that "there are certain populations within Alaska
that seem to be more disproportionably affected by this than
others" must be recognized. The Finding that "more than half being
children under 18 years of age and more than a third being Alaska
Natives" as depicted in Sec. 2(2) page 2 lines 25 and 26, was
derived as a result of testimony presented by the Division of
Behavioral Health, Department of Health and Social Services to the
Senate Health and Social Services and Judiciary Committees the
previous Legislative session. The statement in the Finding
pertaining to pregnant women was based on a recent Department of
Health and Social Services study.
Mr. Guaneli noted that this information is consistent with
information compiled several years earlier. The averages of Alaska
Native high school youth users came from Youth Risk Behavior
surveys which indicate that Native use in this age group "is 20
percent higher than non-Native use. Those were the most striking
differences among various groups." Variations between Blacks,
Asian, and Pacific Islanders and other non-Native groups as
compared to Native youth are minor. "This is a recognition that in
Alaska we have particular problems that would justify a solution
for Alaska only". Testimony provided by the Alaska State Troopers
contended that Alaska Native villages would likely be impacted by
marijuana production and availability. "It's all joined together
and no disrespect" was intended. The Finding is simply "recognition
that there are Alaska specific problems that need to be dealt
with."
10:59:23 AM
Senator Olson asked Mr. Guaneli whether he would support an
amendment to remove the Native references.
10:59:58 AM
Mr. Guaneli responded that he could not "agree with the
characterization that those are pejorative references. They are an
accurate reflection of what is happening in our society." The
question would be in regards to the reason for removing the
language. Were the language removed, a Court in the future might
determine that the Legislature had not perceived there to be a
problem in Rural Alaska and that the problem was less than thought.
The Findings were developed "to reflect what the experts and the
statistics show". There was no disrespectful intent.
11:00:58 AM
Senator Olson opined that this language would have a "subconscious
effect" on non-Native individuals of targeting Alaska Natives.
Mr. Guaneli, acknowledging being non-Native, noted that this was
not his interpretation of the language.
11:01:39 AM
Senator Dyson voiced being impressed by Senator Olson's comments.
Therefore, he questioned whether the implications of the data might
be "more geographic than racial". He suggested that replacing the
term Native with the term "Rural" might address Senator Olson's
concerns.
11:02:22 AM
Senator Olson responded that the difficulty with Senator Dyson's
proposal is that people in the studies identified themselves as
Native rather than Rural.
Mr. Guaneli commented that the people in the Department of Health
and Social Services studies "self-report" themselves as being
Alaska Native.
11:03:05 AM
Mr. Guaneli noted that he would not be opposed to making changes to
address this concern as long as it was "clear that the reason for
the deletion of references to Alaska Natives is because of concern
that somehow the findings were disrespectful or pejorative, not
that there is a doubt about the statistic." The studies would speak
for themselves and could be argued in Court regardless of the
exclusion of the references to Alaska Natives in these findings.
11:04:04 AM
Senator Bunde stated that, "with all due respect to Senator Olson
and the Native people of Alaska, denial is one of the huge parts of
treating drug dependency and alcohol abuse." No one has argued
that, "these facts are not true". Therefore, an attempt "to gloss
over or ignore the problem, Native or non-Native" would not assist
in addressing the problem. Rather than being "pejorative,
acknowledgement is the first step toward" addressing the problem.
He likened this to a family in denial of having a family member who
is an alcoholic or a drug abuser. That denial would allow the
behavior to continue.
11:05:06 AM
Senator Stedman noted that he has not had an opportunity to review
the studies. Nonetheless, he would expect there to be a high
correlation between someone having an education level of grade
twelve or beyond and economic opportunities within the geographic
area, regardless of the location in the State. While he was unsure
as to how education factored into the studies, references have been
made to those having low education skills, regardless of ethnic
background and economic opportunities. The State should be cautious
in regards to language that is used.
11:06:32 AM
Conceptual Amendment #4: This amendment removes references to
Alaska Natives in the bill's findings by deleting "and more than a
third being Alaska Natives" following "age" in Sec. 2(2) page 2,
lines 25 and 26 and removing "and the percentage of pregnant Alaska
Native women using marijuana is more than double the national
average and the average for non-Native Alaskan women; the
percentage of Alaska Native high school youth who have used
marijuana is significantly higher than among non-Native youth;"
following "average" in the same section, lines 27 through 30.
In addition, the language ", particularly among Alaska Natives" is
deleted from Sec. 2(5) page 3 line 12 following the word
"marijuana".
Senator Hoffman moved to strike the references to Alaska Natives in
the Findings. This action is based on the comments made by Mr.
Guaneli.
Senator Hoffman expressed that criminalizing marijuana is a very
controversial issue. While he desired to support this legislation,
including the references to Alaska Natives "as justification … for
criminalizing marijuana, is going down the wrong track."
11:07:51 AM
Senator Dyson stated that this amendment as well as the amendment
previously offered by Senator Stedman, cements the fact that the
Members, as well as experts, "are struggling with separating what's
correlation and what's cause and affect".
Co-Chair Green agreed that that is a hard determination.
Senator Dyson supported Senator Stedman's position that "there are
a lot of things that correlate with the abuse" of controlled
substances. He voiced his desire to separately review the
University of Alaska study referenced by Mr. Guaneli. He
characterized Anchorage as being "the largest Native village" in
the State. He was curious whether those who self-report themselves
as Natives had "a higher propensity" for marijuana abuse. If not,
then it must be assumed that there are other factors. Were the
study to not indicate an ethnic driven propensity of abuse, he
would support this kind of amendment. Additional opportunities
would be provided to address this again during the bill's
advancement process.
Mr. Guaneli identified the portions of the Findings that include
the references to Native Alaskans. The identified portions are
depicted in the amendment.
11:10:06 AM
Following a brief discussion, Senator Hoffman and Senator Olson
agreed that the reference to "Alaska Natives" in Sec. 2 page two,
line five could be retained in the bill.
11:12:23 AM
Senator Hoffman concurred with the references identified by Mr.
Guaneli.
11:12:56 AM
Co-Chair Wilken stated that he would not support the amendment. He
assumed that the references to Alaska Natives were the result of
information included in "Tab E" of a 100-page study [copy not
provided] that had been distributed to members of the Senate HES
Committee. He noted that he would be investigating whether the
population that was studied was "a broad population". He agreed
with Senator Dyson that there would be additional opportunities
through which this issue could be re-addressed.
Co-Chair Wilken commented that were the study to concentrate on
Alaska Natives then it "would not be fair to highlight them in the
bill". However, were the study to have a wide population, and
Alaska Natives found to have higher percentages than other
populations, then it would be appropriate. He reiterated that while
it would be his intent to vote no at this time, he would be open to
a follow up amendment were the study found to be narrow.
11:14:15 AM
Senator Bunde voiced that he too would desire to review the study
before supporting the amendment. He asked whether deletion of the
reference to Alaska Natives in the findings might allow for denial
of treatment programs for targeted groups of people in the future.
"If there's not a problem, we ought not to be spending money on
it."
Co-Chair Green stated that she had also intended to mention that.
11:15:09 AM
Senator Hoffman stated that rather than his remarks to deny there
being a problem, the intent was to point out "that pinpointing this
cultural group in this legislation would have no affect on the
law." While he is supportive of re-criminalizing marijuana, he
could not support including Native Alaskans in the legislation as
"justification" for approving that controversial issue. He opined
that were the references to Alaska Natives to continue in the
findings, he and other Native colleagues would not support the
bill.
Co-Chair Green noted that in her initial review of the bill, she
had not been "blinded" by the words. She opined that any references
to one-third of the being Native population meant that two-thirds
were non-Native.
11:16:29 AM
Senator Stedman spoke in support of the amendment. This is a
Statewide problem. There might be ethnic groups that have more
challenges than others with these substances. There are certain
geographic areas that have more problems. There is a problem in
Southeast Alaska. The same effect could be obtained and a "better
message" could be delivered, were the amendment adopted.
11:17:22 AM
Senator Bunde asked whether the Findings information had been
included in the original bill presented by Representative Jay
Ramras or in the Senate bills.
Co-Chair Green recalled this information being available to the
Senate HES Committee; however, she was uncertain as to whether the
Department or the sponsor had provided it.
11:18:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS stated that, being the sponsor of the
bill, he would "take responsibility for this language". From the
perspective of being "the youngest" Legislator "at this table", he
shared that he had been "introduced to marijuana in the seventh
grade by a Native kid …. The kids I smoked weed with in high school
were all non-Native. So, it's difficult for me as the bill sponsor
to support language that draws a distinction between Natives and
non-Natives because when I grew up, the problem was
indistinguishable."
Co-Chair Green and Senator Bunde thanked Representative Ramras for
his remarks.
11:19:06 AM
In response to a question from Senator Olson, Mr. Guaneli responded
that removal of this language would not affect law enforcement
efforts. The purpose of the Findings would be to allow the Court to
consider the Legislature's judgment in regards to issues such as
the use of marijuana by young people or pregnant women were a
lawsuit challenging the marijuana laws brought before the Courts.
The studies and evidence that the State has complied "would speak
for themselves"; in other words, he believed that the Courts would
take into consideration the fact that the studies would support
there being "a disproportionate impact on certain groups, whether
it be geographic related or something else." In summary, he did not
consider "this amendment as crippling our efforts in any way" and
that "the laws would be upheld".
11:20:37 AM
Mr. Guaneli acknowledged the Member's concerns about the use of
marijuana by certain groups. "That message is going to be heard
loud and clear by the Courts ultimately," regardless of whether the
amendment is adopted.
11:20:56 AM
Senator Olson asked whether the adoption of this amendment would
diminish the ability for the State to prevail were there a legal
challenge.
Mr. Guaneli responded that it would not.
11:21:13 AM
Senator Bunde recalled there having been "Court-ordered activity by
the State in other arenas". To that point, he asked whether the
removal of this language would "make it less likely that the Court
then would say we need to have targeted enforcement or targeted
remedial activities."
11:21:43 AM
Mr. Guaneli responded that rather than the challenge arising as a
result of "one area of the State" or another being targeted, the
anticipation is that the challenge would be based "on just a single
case and the ultimate question is going to be is there sufficient
justification based on what is known about marijuana and its
effects Statewide to justify the Legislature regulating this
substance". He believed that even were the amendment adopted,
"there's sufficient justification for the Courts saying that."
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Olson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Stedman, Senator
Dyson, and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde and Co-Chair Wilken
The motion PASSED (5-2)
Amendment #4 was ADOPTED.
11:23:03 AM
Co-Chair Green noted that the bill's fiscal notes are either zero
or indeterminate.
Senator Hoffman asked Representative Ramras his opinion in regards
to combining the bills.
Representative Ramras voiced being "comfortable" with the bills
being combined because the primary activity "being addressed here
is criminal enterprise; that seems to be a common denominator
amongst the commercial sale of marijuana, distribution of steroids,
and methamphetamine."
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 149 (FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with five new January 12, 2006 fiscal notes: a zero
fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety; a zero fiscal
note from the Department of Law; a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Health and Social Services; an indeterminate fiscal
note for the Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration;
and an indeterminate fiscal note from the Office of Public
Advocacy, Department of Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|