Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
04/06/2015 01:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 154 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 30-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
2:21:27 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
Senate CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(FIN), "An Act relating to
controlled substances; relating to marijuana; relating to crimes
and offenses related to marijuana and the use of marijuana;
relating to open marijuana containers; relating to established
villages and local options; relating to delinquent minors;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee were SB 30, Versions Q and T.]
2:21:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt HCSCSSB 30, Version 29-
LS0231\Q, Martin, 4/3/15 as the working document. There being
no objection, Version Q was before the committee.
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that Version Q and [Version T] would be
discussed during the meeting.
2:22:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX responded to Representative Gruenberg's question
and reiterated that the committee would hear the two versions
and compare each.
2:23:40 PM
AMY SALTZMAN, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, referred to an
earlier version [N] of which there was a House companion, and
stated it offered an affirmative defense approach and that
concerns were expressed because it was at odds with the intent
of the initiative. She offered that creating a defense to a
legal activity would cause the expense of avoiding punishment or
avoiding prosecution to the person participating in a lawful
marijuana activity. The Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
found these concerns to be persuasive and redrafted the bill to
assure that the activities addressed in the initiative would be
affirmatively legal and removed them from controlled substances.
She advised it was the only other option presented to the
committee by Legislative Legal and Research Services at the
time, and later they offered another approach found in the
Senate Finance Committee version. She explained that the
substantive sections, where crimes were created with
implementation of the initiative, are in Secs. 44-51. She noted
that several different crimes were created, and were followed
through in the Senate Finance Committee of are mirrored with the
intent of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee, to some
degree.
2:25:46 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, explained that the
Senate Finance Committee added marijuana back into the
controlled substance schedules. He offered that when an
affirmative defense approach was attempted in the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee it met with vocal opposition. The
committee was advised by Legislative Legal and Research Services
that rather than rely on an affirmative defense, to put it back
into the controlled substance schedule and use a non-
applicability provision to say that the conduct is allowed under
the initiative. He explained that local option provisions were
included, essentially opting out by default established villages
in the unorganized borough and giving them the possibility of
opting in. He further explained that changes were made to the
open container law.
2:27:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that, under the current SB 30, places like
the unorganized borough would be able to have a marijuana shop,
but if it was not in an established village it wouldn't be able
to have anything along the road system.
MR. SHILLING responded that the provision is that only those in
an established village can opt in for the commercial side, and
everything else in the unorganized borough is opted out with no
provision to opt in. He agreed that there would be some places
in the unorganized borough on the road that would not have the
possibility of a marijuana establishment.
2:28:23 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the language regarding how terrible
marijuana is and asked where that language came from.
MR. SHILLING surmised that Chair LeDoux was referring to [Sec.
1-2, Purpose and Findings sections of Version T] and said he was
not sure where the language originated as the amendment came
from Senator Lyman Hoffman's office, but he could get the
information to the committee.
2:28:52 PM
MS. SALTZMAN stated that the amendment was added when the
amendment from Senator Hoffman was added to the bill.
MS. SALTZMAN responded to Chair LeDoux that the language was
added in the Senate Finance Committee.
2:30:02 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the big difference between the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee version and the bill from the
Senate are the felony aspects of the bill.
MR. SHILLING responded in the affirmative and opined that the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version does not include
felony conduct and noted that the highest penalty is a class A
misdemeanor which carries up to one year in jail and $10,000
fine. He pointed out that the Senate Finance Committee version
includes three felonies, which are: possessing 25 or more
plants, possessing a pound or more of marijuana, and furnishing
marijuana to a minor twice in five years. He explained that the
[last] felony is congruent to furnishing alcohol to a minor. He
related that the only other felony conduct in Title 4, contains
provisions related to delivering alcohol to a dry village.
2:31:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there are any other differences
between the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version and the
final bill.
MS. SALTZMAN responded that there were some differences in class
A misdemeanors, class B misdemeanors, and what was considered
violations. She explained that with regard to possession, the
Senate Finance Committee added that if a person had three, but
less than sixteen ounces of marijuana outside the home, or
twelve to twenty-four plants it would be a class A misdemeanor.
Those were changed from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
version. On the same note, she offered, having two but less
than three ounces of marijuana outside a person's home, or
possessing seven to eleven marijuana plants would be misconduct
and a class B misdemeanor.
2:32:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER referred to the question of unorganized
boroughs and surmised that within the Senate Finance Committee
version a community such as Tok, which is under the Tok
Community Umbrella Corporation, is not a village, and is in an
unorganized borough, that there are no provisions allowing Tok
to sell marijuana.
MR. SHILLING advised that if Tok is not a municipality, not an
established village, and in the unorganized borough, it would
not have any recourse to opt in.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER questioned whether within the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee version there is a provision for
communities such as Tok.
MR. SHILLING responded that the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee version contains the traditional local option law as
seen for alcohol, and by default they would have to actively opt
out.
2:33:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to a bill passed on the House
floor by Representative Tilton, and questioned whether that bill
covered the provisions currently covered in this bill. She
asked whether the House Judiciary Standing Committee is still
dealing with opt in/opt out, unorganized borough, dry, damp, and
wet issues in this bill. She related her understanding that the
bill sent to the Senate included all of those provisions in that
legislation.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that Representative Millett was correct but
it is difficult to determine within 14 days what bill is going
to make it and what bill is not going to make it so the
committee is considering these issues right now.
MR. SHILLING offered that he is not an expert on HB 75, but it
is his understanding that the language for local option mirrors
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version.
2:34:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if this committee will rehash [HB
75] again in [SB 30], or just focus on decriminalization.
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that her intent is to basically focus on
the decriminalization.
2:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned if it is appropriate to obtain
a sense from the committee regarding how it wants to approach SB
30.
CHAIR LEDOUX relayed that without actually voting on amendments,
the idea is to determine a sense of the committee as to whether
it wishes to go the route of the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee version, which had been discussed at length in this
committee, or go the route of the Senate Finance Committee
version, or go a different route.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered that she would like to fix the
Senate's mess.
2:36:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a side-by-side comparison [of
the versions] to determine what the choices are.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, but said that the way the versions have
gone are far apart in that they are a totally different
technique, philosophy, etc. In that regard, she offered, a
side-by-side comparison will not work.
2:36:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined there is a lot to be gained by not
inventing too many wheels in one bill. He stated that SB 30 has
more to do with criminal sanctions and if the committee works
under the basic understanding that HB 75, which passed last
week, deals with the local option issues that this committee
should focus on criminal penalties and not much more.
2:38:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that he does not want to write
off the work of a committee simply saying they didn't consider
all of the bill. He opined that the committee has an obligation
to make a rational decision with both versions in mind.
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that is the reason both versions are
before the committee today, in order to make a decision as a
committee as to where it wants to go. She said she leans toward
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version, but she did not
want to simply strip the bill and substitute the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee version without a discussion in
this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he did not mean to imply anything
other than the fact that there is no reason to take a sense of
the committee without [reviewing both versions].
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the House Judiciary Standing Committee
calendar and noted it will be spending plenty of time on SB 30.
2:40:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that someone from Senate Finance
Committee testify in order for the committee to understand its
thinking.
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that Mr. Shilling is staff to Senator
John Coghill, and questioned whether Senator Coghill is on the
Senate Finance Committee.
MR. SHILLING noted that Senator Coghill is not on the Senate
Finance Committee, although Mr. Shilling assisted in carrying
the bill through that committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he prefers to be certain both
sides of the argument are given an opportunity.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that someone from Senate Finance
Committee is welcome to offer its version.
2:41:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX open public testimony.
2:41:37 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she had previously asked Cynthia
Franklin, during a House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
meeting, that from the perspective of the regulator which
version made more sense. She said she believes Ms. Franklin
responded that it made more sense from a regulatory perspective
to leave marijuana out of controlled substances.
2:42:28 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC Board), Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development, agreed with Chair LeDoux's depiction of her
statement and said that the preliminary considerations document
the ABC Board released during a February board meeting contains
a section addressing this issue. She advised that the board
joined with her and the enforcement staff in recommending an
approach removing the substance from the Controlled Substances
Act and creating crimes around this substance in one place along
with the regulations. She offered that Title 4, is modeled in
this manner that when looking for the rules around commercial
and non-commercial alcohol, other than the vehicle crime in
Title 28, all of the alcohol crimes are in Title 4. She
described the carve out approach that has crimes involving the
substance in the Controlled Substances Act, in that alcohol
itself is not illegal but there is conduct around alcohol that
is illegal. Title 4, explains what can and cannot be done
around alcohol. The voters said they do not want marijuana to
be illegal in Alaska, but do want some conduct around marijuana
to be illegal which is reflected in AS 17.38. She indicated
that speaking from a regulatory standpoint, it would be simpler
to explain to everyone what the rules around marijuana are, what
can and can't be done with that dangerous substance, in one
place. She advised this is the reason the board recommended the
substance be removed and that crimes be created in one place to
mirror the scheme around alcohol. She further advised that she
spoke with Colorado regulators regarding the "carve out system,"
and they stated it substantially injured their ability to shut
down the black market and prevent diversion because the rules
can be confusing for the public and law enforcement. She noted
that a police officer has to determine whether the marijuana is
illegal as a controlled substance Title 11 marijuana, or whether
it is legal but regulated in Title 17 marijuana. She said that
putting the police officer in that position while standing on
the side of the road, from the board's perspective, is an
undesirable way of regulating this substance with public safety
in mind and preventing the diversion while staying on the right
side of the federal rules (indisc.).
2:45:58 PM
DOLLYNDA PHELPS, said with regard to the Senate Finance
Committee version [Purpose} on page 1, she saw propaganda of the
1960s-1980s, and urged that current information and medical
research be involved. She said she found issue with the 16
ounce limit and everything produced from six plants as there
should not be any limit within the house, but there should be a
limit outside of the home for safety precautions. In truly
following the initiative there should not be any limits within
the home, she offered. She stated that cannabis should not be
considered a controlled substance and should stay off of the VIA
schedule list. She related that her research found that under
Schedule VI there is "no currently accepted medical use in the
United States for the substance." She referred to U.S. Patent
No. 6630507, "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and Neuroprotectants"
is assigned to the United States of America as represented by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Clearly,
there is an accepted medical use for cannabis and it does not
belong on Schedule VIA which is in conflict with the current
form of SB 30 that does put cannabis in a Schedule VI category.
2:48:30 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to Ms. Franklin's opinion wherein it might
make it better for regulators to control and regulate both
liquor and marijuana if they are not in controlled substances,
and that both are treated the same. She asked what difference
it makes as long as a person is not arrested whether [cannabis]
is considered a controlled substance or not.
MS. PHELPS responded that by definition cannabis does not belong
[in controlled substances] as there are many accepted medical
uses in the United States. She noted that in going further
"there is a larger animal at hand, even federally." She
related that the initiative clearly states that concentrates are
a product of cannabis, and that marijuana and marijuana products
would become legal, and that several petitions were signed and
sent to the Senate supporting this. She offered that
concentrates are commonly used which require enough strength to
benefit patients suffering from cancer, Parkinson's disease,
fibromyalgia, and epilepsy, among others. A person's right to
survival should not be diminished by the United States or the
State of Alaska, she opined. She stated that (indisc.)
concentrated form otherwise there are not enough health benefits
to relieve cancer or fibromyalgia [symptoms] and that research
would offer more guidance
2:51:43 PM
JASON HOWARD, referred to [Sec. 2], page 2, lines 24-25, which
read:
(2) several hundred adults and children are
admitted into treatment each year in Alaska for
marijuana abuse, with nearly 46 percent being children
under 20 years of age;
MR. HOWARD advised he has researched this issue and found the
provision misleading in that it is possibly taken out of context
wherein a child has a choice to go to juvenile detention or go
to rehab for marijuana, as with adults. He said he also
contacted researchers regarding issues of suicide and other
problems that children have, and they found that studies have
shown that IQ deficiency has led to self-harm, and that the
researchers offered they never looked into how the body makes
cannabinoids in children. He noted that he spoke with a
therapist on the Kenai Peninsula who advised that almost half of
the children he treats have a problem with self-harm. Mr.
Howard said that when a person cuts themselves, the body heals
with cannabinoids and noted he is confused as to why the
legislature is not looking at these things. He referred to
[Sec. 2], page 2, lines 26-28, which read:
(3) there is evidence that some users become
dependent on marijuana under the clinical standards
applied by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders IV; ...
MR. HOWARD referenced the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM) and stated that it should not be used as
scientific data in that it was written from work groups and task
forces, and is a guide for insurance companies. He explained
that the DSM is not based on scientific data and that this
information is actually written in the DSM itself, and
therefore, is not a reliable source. He referred to [Sec. 2],
page 3, lines 4-6, which read:
(5) a significant percentage of persons in
treatment for alcohol abuse also abuse a secondary
drug, which may include marijuana; nevertheless, the
relationship between marijuana and alcohol and other
drugs is not fully understood;
2:54:37 PM
MR. HOWARD stated his disagreement with the above provision in
that there is plenty of research on how marijuana and
cannabinoids affect the brain, and the reward system. He then
referred to [Sec. 2], page 3, lines 7-14, which read:
(6) marijuana consists of hundreds of different
chemicals that can affect almost every organ and
system in the body, including the lymph system, the
heart, and the lungs; THC binds to receptors in the
brain that should otherwise bind to naturally
occurring brain chemicals; marijuana can affect
memory, attention, judgment, and other cognitive
functions and can impair motor coordination, time
perception, and balance; marijuana smoke contains more
carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke;
marijuana often contains bacteria or fungi that are
dangerous to humans, and may be harvested and sold
without removing pesticides and fungicides;
MR. HOWARD disagreed with the above provision in that a person's
body has a lipid signaling system that is performed by
cannabinoids, and it regulates everything in the human body.
Unfortunately, the provision implies it is a negative effect.
The issue of bacteria and fungi being dangerous to humans is
something that having [cannabis] controlled and regulated would
be addressed. He referred to [Sec. 2], page 3, lines 15-16,
which read:
(7) about 40 percent of the adults arrested in
this state who commit violent offenses have marijuana
in their system at the time of the arrest;
MR. HOWARD offered that this provision is also misleading in
that most of the tests today do not test for active THC
metabolites and test for inactive metabolites. A person could
smoke one day and be tested 30 days later and still have those
metabolites in their system. He said he disagrees with the six
plant limit per household as he is a medical marijuana user, and
a disabled veteran who was blown up by two improvised explosive
devices (IEDs.) He related that he is on a large amounts of
opioids, lorazepan, and heavy narcotics for anxiety, sleep, and
migraines. He pointed out that all of those issues are
eliminated with large amounts of cannabis an expressed concern
regarding limiting cannabis to six plants for those who require
large amounts of cannabis.
2:57:58 PM
RACHELLE YEUNG, Marijuana Policy Project, offered support for
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee's version of SB 30 given
that their suggestions were addressed. She then referred to
Secs. 1-2, of the bill and stated they should be completely
deleted in that Sec. 1, concerns opting out of the unorganized
boroughs. She pointed out that this committee deemed that the
unorganized borough should not be opted out and instead
established villages within the borough should have the option
to opt themselves out. She pointed to Sec. 2, and stated it
should be stricken for its irrelevancy and unscientific
findings, that it does not appear these findings were discussed
during any of the hearings, and that she found it curious that
by its language should make empty statutes. She offered the
recommendation that the bill not ban delivery as it could affect
medical patients with mobility issues who are home bound. She
suggested reviewing the proposed fines or penalties for some of
the crimes as they may not meet up with the standards set by the
initiative. She pointed out that possibly a drafting error made
it illegal for adults to display, use, or possess under an ounce
of marijuana, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of
the initiative. She suggested amending the definition of open
marijuana containers to the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee's definition.
[SB 30 was held over.]
3:02:05 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AK-Initiative-Text.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| Hb 123 amend H.1.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| Hb 123 H.2.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 CS ver E.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 CS ver H.PDF |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 CS ver N.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Fiscal Note - DOA.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Letter of Opposition.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Memo regarding fiscal note revision-DOA.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Supporting Documents - ABC.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123-DCCED-ABC-03-09-15.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Ver A.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| Hotrum v State.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB30 v T.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| CSSSB30 Draft Proposed v Q.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| CSSB30(SFIN) Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| CSSB30(FIN) Sectional Analysis Version T.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |