Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/2017 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB6 | |
| SB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to industrial hemp; and relating to
controlled substances."
1:50:11 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered why the three-year limit was
chosen to maintain records following the sale of industrial
hemp. She remarked that the federal government typically
maintained a five or ten-year record.
1:51:24 PM
BUDDY WHITT, STAFF, SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, replied that it
was modeled after other hemp programs in other states. He
stressed that it was important to keep the records for a
length of time.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the GPS location needed
to be included in the bill. Mr. Whitt responded that
Division of Agriculture would have that GPS information in
their records, so it was not included in the piece.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 4, line 29; and page 5
line 1. These locations referenced to fees collected that
equaled the regulatory costs of the proposed new industry.
She wondered why the word "approximate" was used. She noted
that other licensures were required to pay for the cost of
the program support, and the word "approximate" was not
used for those programs. The legislature normally confines
the program to a fee that supported the costs. Mr. Whitt
replied that "approximate" was used, because it was a new
industry for the state. The fees associated with the
registration would be charged prior to the growth of the
prop. There was no way to know exactly the regulatory
costs, because the crop had not yet grown.
1:56:33 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the words "may" or
"shall" for inspections would cause an increase to the
fiscal note. She wondered why there was no issued violation
related to a problem in the industry. Mr. Whitt replied
that the Division of Agriculture may want to use some
leniency in the beginning to review the crop at a
violation.
1:57:36 PM
ROB CARTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, PALMER (via
teleconference), stated that the language was by the bill
sponsor. The interpretation by the division was that the
should the incumbent of the stop-sell order not follow the
order; the violation would be allocated to that individual.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at line 19, which said "may
import into the state, and resell industrial hemp seeds."
The guidance said that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
needed to be involved in that transaction. Mr. Carter
replied that the DEA would need to issue a form that
allowed the transfer of a controlled substance. The
registrant could apply through the DEA to import seeds, and
then recoup the costs to another registrant of the program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the comment on $500, and whether
that was consistent with other places in code for a
violation. Mr. Whitt replied that in AS 03.05.090, it
stated that the Division of Agriculture had the authority
to issue a civil penalty for up to $500 for farmers who
were not following the guidelines. He remarked that there
was an additional provision to increase that fee to a Class
A misdemeanor.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the $500 would be a
deterrent, should the chemical content be higher. Mr. Whitt
replied the Division of Agriculture had the authority to
fine $500 as often as was needed. He stressed that the crop
would have a THC content of 0.3. He stated that a THC
content of above 1.0 would be a criminal violation.
2:03:13 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop hoped to have an expert to discuss
industrial hemp versus the "other kind of pot." Mr. Carter
replied that he could answer that question.
Vice-Chair Bishop understood that hemp would grow an excess
of above four feet. The retail marijuana for consumption
did not grow that tall. He understood that the leaves were
the same, but hemp did not have any buds; and the stock and
fibers were different. Mr. Carter replied that the planting
densities determined the trait differences. He stated that
industrial hemp was upright and recreational marijuana was
a larger and wider plant to create flowers. He stated that
the largest difference was that the recreational growers
were growing cannabis sativa for the flowers and the female
byproducts. The industrial hemp industry grew male and
female plants in one setting, resulting in pollination and
seed development.
2:05:59 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked how the THC content was lowered in
hemp production. He wondered whether the seeds were
modified. Mr. Carter responded that industrial hemp seeds
have not been modified in a laboratory.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the definition of "cannabidiol
(CBD) oil." Mr. Whitt responded that CBD oil was already
available in stores. He stated that the CBD content would
be high in a low THC content plant.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how CBD oil would be used. Mr.
Whitt responded that CBD oil was the oil content of
industrial hemp that was used in products like lotions,
soaps, and candles.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 6, line 8, and wondered
why "peace officer" was used instead of law enforcement.
Mr. Whitt replied that it matched current statute.
Mr. Whitt continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis (copy
on file):
AS 03.05.079 Page 6, lines 16-20
A registered grower of industrial hemp is guilty of a
violation when they produce industrial hemp with a THC
content of between .3 percent and 1 percent.
Sec. 5 AS 03.05.100 Page 6, Lines 21-23
The definition of industrial hemp, which meets the
definition is federal statute, is the plant Cannabis
Sativa L containing less that 0.3 percent delta-9
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Sec. 6 AS 11.71.900 Page 6, Lines 24-31 and Page 7,
Lines 1and2
Amendment in statute to remove industrial hemp as
defined in AS 03.05.100 from the list of controlled
substances.
Sec. 7 AS 17.20.020 Page 7, Line 3-5
Food containing industrial hemp as defined in AS
03.05.100 is not considered adulterated.
2:11:39 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the regulation of food and
consumption with the product used in food. Mr. Whitt
replied that the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) regulated food.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Section 7, page 7, and queried
the regulation of industrial hemp in the food supply. Mr.
Carter that food products were regulated by DEC.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried a fact sheet about the foods
that contained hemp.
Mr. Whitt continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 8 AS 17.38.900 Page 7, Lines 6-14
Amendment is statute to further remove industrial hemp
as defined in AS 03.05.100 from marijuana definitions.
Sec. 9, Page 7, Lines 15-30
By December 1, 2024 the Department of Natural
Resources will issue a report to the legislature on
the regulation of industrial hemp in the state of
Alaska.
2:17:10 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that currently under federal
law, hemp was a controlled substance. She understood that
the bill removed hemp from the controlled substance
schedule. Mr. Whitt deferred to Ms. Schroeder.
2:18:27 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, explained that marijuana was a schedule 1 controlled
substance under federal law. She stated that the farm bill
specifically addressed hemp production, should the THC
level be below 0.3 percent.
Co-Chair MacKinnon believed that it was still considered a
controlled substance. Ms. Schroeder queried the document
referenced.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she was looking at the
"Notice of Guidance" (copy on file). Ms. Schroeder replied
that following Section 706 would allow that conduct with
industrial hemp.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried comments on the controlled
substance issue. Mr. Carter responded that Section 706 of
the Farm Bill did not remove industrial hemp from the
National Controlled Substance Act, but it did give legal
by-proxy to the activities authorized under the Industrial
Hemp Pilot Program. The language removing hemp from the
Alaska Controlled Substance list was to protect the
agricultural industry.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that marijuana was still on the
controlled substance list in the state. Therefore, hemp
would now be seen differently. Ms. Schroeder replied that
without the change in the bill, hemp would fall under the
same definition as marijuana.
2:22:00 PM
Senator Dunleavy queried the other restrictions on
marijuana in the state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt that it was a circular argument.
Senator Dunleavy felt that hemp was getting more scrutiny
than marijuana. Ms. Schroeder replied that personal use
marijuana allowed for baking into foods, operating with one
ounce or less; or twelve plants within a dwelling.
Senator Dunleavy replied that those were limited under the
state criminal code. Ms. Schroeder agreed.
Mr. Whitt furthered that the bill was under scrutiny. He
stressed that the bill sponsor wanted to ensure that the
public interest was protected.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the marijuana discussion
over a previous legislature did not remove marijuana from
the controlled substance list. The purpose was that it was
still listed as a controlled substance at the federal
level.
Senator Micciche wondered whether a better analogy might be
the difference between a grape and wine. Ms. Schroeder
replied that she could not comment on that analogy.
Senator Micciche queried the point at which hemp could be
transported across state lines in the form of a product.
Ms. Schroeder deferred to Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter stated that an inviable hemp seed could be sold
and transported; and any non-raw agricultural product could
be transported worldwide.
Mr. Whitt stated that the Department of Law (DOL) pointed
out one area that he hoped the committee would consider. He
noted that there were numerous issues of confiscating CBD
oil across the state. He looked at page 5, lines 21 through
25, where the bill specifically addressed hashish and
hashish oil as defined in AS 11.71.900; but not to include
CBD oil. He stated that to remove oil from the criminal
code to avoid confiscation of CBD oil in the future, there
needed to be an exclusion of CBD oil from AS 11.71.900.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked to review the fiscal notes
Vice-Chair Bishop addressed the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that there would be a
discussion about the need for $25,000 to draft the
regulations.
SB 6 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:33:38 PM
AT EASE
2:35:19 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Bishop.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 31 DOA Response 4.4.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 Q3 Backup.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 Q6 Backup.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 Q7.1.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 Q7.2.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 Q8.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |