Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/2017 09:00 AM 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 | |
| SB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 63
"An Act prohibiting smoking in certain places;
relating to education on the smoking prohibition; and
providing for an effective date."
9:03:58 AM
Senator Micciche, sponsor, discussed the bill. He recalled
that the bill had passed the Senate twice the previous
year. He informed that more people in Alaska died annually
from the effects of tobacco than from suicide, motor
vehicle accidents, homicide, and chronic liver diseases
combined. He asserted that due to his political persuasion,
he considered concepts by whether they passed the test of
freedom and liberty, as well as by the responsibility of
protecting public safety and health. He believed the
fundamental right to breathe smoke-free air in the
workplace compelled the legislature to protect Alaska's
labor force.
Senator Micciche read excerpts from the sponsor statement
(copy on file):
The financial burden of caring for those that fall
victim to tobacco-related illness due to secondhand
smoke costs the State of Alaska tens of millions of
dollars annually.
Current law prohibits smoking in the workplace in many
areas of the state including healthcare facilities,
schools, childcare facilities and public meeting rooms
in government buildings. Over one half of the
population of Alaska including those in Bethel,
Anchorage, Juneau, Barrow, Dillingham, Haines,
Skagway, Petersburg, Klawock, Nome, Unalaska, and
Palmer are currently living under smoke-free laws
similar to SB 63. These laws are well established and
strongly supported by citizens and businesses. For
Alaskans residing in the remaining areas of the state,
this bill will offer a uniformly applied smoke-free
workplace policy.
SB 63 does not prohibit outdoor smoking, except near
building entrances/exits, air intakes, and other
specifically-designated public gathering places. The
bill does not legislate the employment of smokers or
non-smokers. Local governments with adequate
jurisdiction will retain the authority to adopt more
restrictive local provisions than the statewide law.
9:06:10 AM
RACHEL HANKE, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, discussed the
Sectional Analysis for the bill (copy on file):
Section 1
Provides a statement of legislative intent which is
that nothing in this Act will waive the state's
immunity from liability provided for in state law, nor
to alter applicable law relating to possible liability
of manufacturers, dispensers, or others as a result of
smoking or using tobacco or e-cigarettes within an
enclosed area.
Section 2
Adds a new article to AS 18.35 that
· AS 18.35.301 - prohibits smoking in certain
places, including specified enclosed areas and at
or near specified outdoor areas;
· provides limited exceptions to the smoking
prohibitions for retail tobacco and e-cigarette
stores, for enclosed, marked, and vented transit
areas, for private residences, for specified
vehicles and vessels, for stand-alone shelters
and for licensed marijuana establishments;
· AS 18.35.306 - requires notices of smoking
prohibitions and fines;
· AS 18.35.311 - prohibits employers and building
owners or managers from permitting smoking or
supplying smoking accessories in place where it
is prohibited;
· AS 18.35.316-35.321 - requires the commissioner
of health and social services or the
commissioner's designee to administer and enforce
the requirements under the Act and to provide
public education about the requirements;
· AS 18.35.326 - prohibits an employer, or owner or
operator of a vehicle from retaliating for
initiating or cooperating with enforcement of the
Act;
· AS 18.35.331 - allows a municipality to impose
additional smoking restrictions and duties;
Ms. Hanke continued discussing the sectional analysis for
SB 63:
Sections 3 - 4
AS 18.35.340(a) & (b) - amends cross-references to
conform to the new and repealed provisions.
Section 5
AS 18.35.340(c) - amends cross-references and provides
new fines for violations in which the commissioner has
filed a civil complaint.
Section 6-7
AS 18.35.341(a) & (b) - amends cross-references to
conform to the new and repealed provisions.
Section 5
AS 18.35.340(c) - amends cross-references and provides
new fines for violations in which the commissioner has
filed a civil complaint.
Section 6-7
AS 18.35.341(a) & (b) - amends cross-references to
conform to the new and repealed provisions.
[email protected]
Section 8
AS 18.35.341(c) - amends cross-references and provides
individuals found guilty of a violation as defined in
Title 11 are subject to new fines.
Section 9-12
AS 18.35.341(d), 35.342, 35.343 & 35.350 - Amend
cross-references to conform to the new and repealed
provisions.
Section 13
AS 18.35.399 - Defines terms used in the Act.
Section 14
Repeals specified provisions related to smoking in AS
18.35.
Section 15
Uncodified law - specifies that the changes made by
secs. 2 - 13 of the Act apply to violations or
compliance failures that occur on or after the
effective date of secs. 2 - 13 of the Act.
Section 16
Uncodified law - authorizes the Department of Health
and Social Services to adopt necessary regulations to
implement the Act. The Regulations may not take effect
before the effective date of the relevant provision
being implemented.
Section 17
Provides for an immediate effective date for sec. 16.
Section 18
Provides for an October 1, 2017 effective date for the
remainder of the Act.
Senator Micciche noted that the bill was purposefully
designed to be light-handed and with light fines. He
informed that similar laws in effect in Anchorage had
produced almost no violations. He had researched that the
law would not negatively impact businesses. He stated that
the difference in the bill from the version from the
previous year was a couple of changed items that the
sponsor felt had not fallen into the category of
specifically protecting Alaskan employees.
9:10:41 AM
DR. JAY BUTLER, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, relayed that his perspective and
comments on the bill were in the context of a physician and
public health professional. He relayed that he was a former
tobacco user. He asserted that secondhand smoke had been
linked to several health disorders; including
cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, asthma, and middle-ear
infections.
Dr. Butler focused his remarks on cardiovascular disease as
the short-term impact of secondhand smoke. He discussed
research that linked smoke exposure to heart-attack risk,
which was evidenced-based in multiple scientific studies.
He referred to studies that showed the epidemiological link
between smoke exposure and heart-attack risk. He relayed
that smoke exposure lead to stickiness of the blood's
platelets in the walls of the vessels of the heart. In
areas where smoking had been taken out of doors, it was
found that there was a decrease in incident of heart
attacks. On average the decline in heart attacks was 17
percent, and the declines were greater among women and
younger people. He estimated that if Alaska could achieve
the same level of decline in the heart-attack rate, the
health care system in the state could save almost $4
million in costs, and the Alaska Medicaid program could
avert over $500,000 in direct medical costs.
9:13:44 AM
Dr. Butler continued discussing the bill. He spoke to
promoting personal responsibility, which was central to the
mission of his department. He thought encouraging people to
think about reducing exposure to people around them fit
with the department's work.
Senator Olson considered that the bill was good for the
health of the state and asked why it had not already passed
into law.
Dr. Butler thought Senator Olson's question was more
political than medical, and was unsure he could answer
beyond speculation. He thought there were interests that
wanted to encourage free usage of tobacco. There were data
that suggested that when there were restrictions on where
tobacco could be used, overall usage and the uptake of
tobacco products by youth were shown to decline.
Senator Olson asked why the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) had not pushed for more stringent smoking
laws in the past 50 years, since it was known that there
was a strong link between smoking and health issues.
Dr. Butler had worked in his current position as Chief
Medical Officer approximately 27 months, and had been
involved with the bill starting with SB 1 the previous
session. He was not familiar enough with the history of the
department to be able to comment on why action had not been
taken sooner. He thought that emerging science and support
of the United States (U.S.) Surgeon General was partly to
attribute for the current action on the issue.
9:16:29 AM
EMILY NENON, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
AND CANCER ACTION NETWORK, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She explained that in
1998, Bethel had been the first community in Alaska to pass
a local smoke-free workplace law. She noted that since
1998, many places around the state (such as Barrow, Juneau,
Anchorage, Unalaska, Nome, Palmer, and Dillingham) had
passed similar laws. She thought about half the state's
population was covered by local smoke-free workplace laws.
She thought many places in the state did not have the local
health powers necessary to pass such a law, which
necessitated a statewide law to ensure all workers were
protected from secondhand smoke in the workplace.
Ms. Nenon continued to testify on the bill. She concurred
with the previous testifier that the science behind the
effects of smoking had gotten stronger. She referenced a
2006 report by the U.S. Surgeon General that established
that no amount of secondhand smoke was safe for humans, and
that ventilation systems were not adequate to protect
health. In 2006, electronic cigarettes hit the market in
the U.S. There was not a body of research on the effects of
electronic cigarettes, but there was significant cause for
concern with health impacts.
Ms. Nenon noted that there was strong support for the
legislation around the state, that had only grown over the
past few years. She referenced polling numbers that were
included in the bill packet. She emphasized that everyone
had a right to breathe smoke-free air.
9:20:10 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
ALYSSA KEILL, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She thought limiting
public exposure to secondhand smoke was in the best
interest of the state based on cost. She discussed
healthcare costs, and the economic burden of paying for
individuals suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. She
discussed the consequences of breathing secondhand smoke.
She did not believe smoking was a right.
9:22:45 AM
JOHNA BEECH, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. She thanked the sponsor. She lived in
a borough that did not have health powers. She mentioned
those youth entering the workforce, and individuals
hindered by secondhand smoke.
9:24:15 AM
BOB URATA, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEER, JUNEAU
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He
relayed that he was a family physician. He noted that
cigarette smoking continued to be the leading cause of
preventable death and disease in the U.S. and Alaska. He
referenced the U.S. Surgeon General's comments on the
dangers of secondhand smoke on vascular function. He
discussed the expense of smoking in lost productivity, and
possible savings to Medicaid. He referenced research that
showed decline in heart attacks after implementation of
smoke-free workplaces. He thought electronic cigarettes and
should be included in any restrictions. He urged the
committee to support the bill.
9:26:27 AM
CHRYSTAL SCHOENROCK, KENAI PENINSULA CABARET, HOTEL, AND
RESTAURANT RETAILERS (CHARR), 4-LANDS BAR, NIKISKI (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill. She
thought business owners and patrons should have a choice on
the issue of smoking. She asserted that there was a
sufficient number of non-smoking establishments. She shared
concerns about the potential impact to her business. She
referenced a decline in business and the prospect of
increased taxes. She emphasized freedom of choice for
smokers.
9:28:29 AM
MARY SEARS, SELF, MATSU (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. She thought it was possible to make a
difference in the lives of people who were forced to
experience secondhand smoke. She relayed that she was a
retired correctional officer, and had worked around
secondhand smoke for many years. She discussed her
experience with secondhand smoke and the resultant negative
effects. She experienced cancer and lung scarring.
9:29:34 AM
JOHN SLOAN, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He asserted that the
legislation had no cost, and did not understand the
opposition to the bill. He recalled smoking occurring in
public places. He wanted to make Alaska a safe and healthy
place that people would want to come to for work and play.
9:30:57 AM
GAIL SCHIEMANN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She had worked in the hospitality
industry for over 20 years before any secondhand smoke
protections were put into place. She was a non-smoker. She
experienced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
and relied on oxygen to perform normal household tasks.
9:31:53 AM
AMANDA LENHARD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She enjoyed living in a
community with smoke-free restaurants. She discussed the
effects of secondhand smoke on children.
9:32:34 AM
DICK BLOCK, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA MULTI-FAMILY BUSINESS
OWNERS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified on the
bill. He was not in opposition to the bill, but had a
concern. He relayed that his company was in property
management. He was concerned about how a regulatory agency
might enforce the bill. He beleived that there had been
some unfortunate drafting of language that was in statute.
He thought it was unclear as to who was responsible if an
individual was smoking on one of his properties. He wanted
to preclude responsibility by the property owner. He had
visited and discussed the matter with staff to the sponsor.
He believed that owners and operators of multi-family-owned
buildings were in a different position than owners of other
establishments. He was concerned that an apartment building
owner was never on the property, and could not monitor
smoking activity beyond putting up signage. He was
supportive of putting anti-smoking language in a lease.
9:35:58 AM
KATIE STEFFENS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She discussed
experiencing secondhand smoke in restaurants. She shared
concerns about the effects of secondhand smoke on children.
She urged the committee to pass the bill.
9:37:04 AM
ANGELA CERNICH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She discussed her personal
experience with secondhand smoke. She had experienced
medical problems including COPD as a result of secondhand
smoke.
9:39:08 AM
CARMEN LUNDE, KODIAK CHARR, KODIAK (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. She believed business
owners had the right to make choices without government
mandates. She discussed the compromise that had taken place
in Kodiak; where 75 percent of the bars were designated as
non-smoking, and the remaining 25 percent allowed smoking
inside. She discussed the weather and thought people should
not be forced to smoke outside. She quoted Abraham Lincoln.
9:40:54 AM
BETTY MACTAVISH, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA/ASCAN,
KODIAK (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill.
She stated that the Kodiak Island Borough had health powers
but had chosen to sign a resolution of support for the bill
instead of passing a local smoke-free ordinance. She
clarified that there had never been a vote on a smoke-free
ordinance in the borough. She spoke of her personal
experience with the ill effects of secondhand smoke. She
discussed her work with youth who smoked. She urged the
committee to pass the bill and protect Alaskan workers.
9:42:53 AM
PAMELA HOWARD, SCHOOL NURSE, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She thanked the sponsor,
and thanked the committee for its work. She discussed her
personal experience with asthma. She referred to Senator
Olson's question about why the law had not been put into
place earlier. She referred to other states that had passed
similar laws, and commented on marketing and lobbying
spending by tobacco companies.
9:45:11 AM
WAYNE CROWSON, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He shared that his
brother had died of lung cancer after being exposed to
secondhand smoke. He discussed the ill effects of
secondhand smoke.
9:45:53 AM
NIKKI LEE, MUG SHOT SALOON, MATSU (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. She felt a business should
have the right to determine whether it allowed smoking or
not.
9:46:39 AM
MICHELE SHAPIRO, MATSU CHARR, MATSU (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. She was speaking on
behalf of CHARR members in the Mat-Su Valley. She relayed
that there were businesses in her area that had chosen not
to allow smoking in the establishment. She thought the
decision as to whether to allow smoking should be left to
the business owners. She relayed that the community of Nome
had gone smoke-free, and remarked on the groups of
individuals smoking outside near the general public.
9:48:48 AM
JENNIFER BRANDT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke
in support to the bill. She shared her personal experience
with the detriments of secondhand smoke in the workplace.
9:49:46 AM
DANIEL LYNCH, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. He supported freedom
of choice for property and business owners as it pertained
to free market economics. He supported local control and
local option, as was used with alcohol and cannabis use. He
discussed the cost of local enforcement. He wondered why
there should be another law that would not be enforced. He
asserted that the state received an average of $70 million
from tobacco taxes. He suggested that the bill would cause
lost revenue. He thought there were other professions that
deserved scrutiny for unsafe conditions, such as drive-
throughs and the construction industry. He thought there
should be a bill to prevent cell phone use on public roads.
He thought there should be a study to determine the
difference in health between Bethel and the Kenai
Peninsula.
9:52:07 AM
LARRY HACKENMILLER, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. He discussed the
unregulated use of propane and natural gas stoves in homes.
He discussed scientific standards employed by the
Environmental Protection Agency. He did not think smoking
should be subject to governmental control. He thought there
was a safe level of secondhand smoke exposure. He thought
there had been a misrepresentation of science. He
questioned the assertion that secondhand smoke was lethal.
9:54:36 AM
DICK ELLSWORTH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. He agreed with the
previous speaker. He discussed his roadhouse in which there
was an air-exchange system. He discussed his business. He
shared concerns about a loss of jobs as a result of the
bill. He discussed tobacco tax revenue. He discussed
enforcement, and thought the issue had been addressed on a
local level.
9:56:53 AM
DEAN GUSTAFSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He relayed that he was a former
United States Marine, and graduate student in public health
at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He thanked the bill
sponsor. He referred to earlier testimony regarding the
health and economic benefits of the bill. He thought that
it was important to note that the bill did not prevent
smoking, but rather pertained to the location in which
individuals could smoke. He had worked in an establishment
with smoking, but had the education to leave the venue. He
made the point that the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and other entities already regulated
businesses. He thought that indoor smoking was a public
health issue.
9:59:07 AM
PETE HANSON, ALASKA CHARR, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that local
governments in the state had been moving towards non-
smoking. He suggested that 90 percent of Alaskans lived in
areas where local governments had the authority to regulate
smoking. He stated that many communities had chosen to
limit smoking, and many had chosen to continue smoking in
some workplaces. He thought there were many choices for
individuals who wished to visit a non-smoking bar, even in
communities that had not chosen to ban smoking in bars. He
thought there were many choices for bartenders who wanted
to work in a non-smoking bar. He pointed out that some
workplaces that currently allowed smoking would lose jobs
if indoor smoking was banned. He thought the market was
doing a good job of moving the industry toward non-smoking.
He thought the issue would work itself out, if given time.
10:01:40 AM
MABEL WIMMER, BUSINESS OWNER, GLENALLEN (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She relayed
that she was a restaurant and bar owner, and her business
had been smoke-free for 15 years. She had not had any
business problems. She discussed her adverse personal
experience working around secondhand smoke. She pointed out
that she was a member of CHARR, and asserted not all CHARR
members wanted smoking in bars. She did not want to expose
her patrons or employees to something that could cause them
harm. She discussed individuals who suffered from cancer
and COPD after exposure to smoke.
10:03:53 AM
ALEX MCDONALD, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. He was a business
owner. He stated that he joined in the effort to try and
reduce tobacco use and related illnesses in the state. He
referred to his past testimony on previous versions of the
bill. He objected to the inclusion of vapor products in the
bill, which he thought was contrary to policy suggestions
from experts and organizations around the world. He
mentioned the unintended consequence of forcing vapor
product users to be in proximity to smokers. He alleged
that to comply with the bill, he would have to purchase and
install a ventilation system costing between $30,000 and
$50,000. He discussed potential changes he would need to
make to his business as a result of the bill. He restated
that he was in support of increased health and safe jobs
for Alaskans. He thought removing the vapor language from
the bill would increase support and save jobs. He wanted to
keep smokeless technology available to individuals trying
to quit smoking.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the committee had received
Mr. McDonald's testimony in its entirety via email.
10:06:48 AM
STEVEN MAPES, SMOKE FREE ALTERNATIVE TRADE ASSOCIATION,
KENAI (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the
bill. He shared concerns about the inclusion of vaping and
electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the bill. He
asserted that there were hundreds of scientific studies
conducted over the last few years proving that vapor and
tobacco smoke were not the same thing. He thought the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration considered e-
cigarette vapor to be safe. He discussed a requirement for
air scrubbers and exterior doors, which he thought would
force some stores to close and prevent new stores from
opening. He stated that his shop had helped 304 individuals
cease use of cigarettes and chewing tobacco in the previous
14 months. He thought the bill would result in the loss of
jobs.
10:09:06 AM
DAVID NEES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the legislation. He shared concerns about the
inclusion of vaping products in the bill. He thought that
there should be nicotine testing for children using public
health assistance. He discussed the use of vaping as it
related to smoking cessation. He thought that anything that
prohibited the use of vaping products would cause an
increase in smoking. He thought the committee should
consider data pertaining to the costs associated with
children being exposed to secondhand smoke at home.
10:12:25 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony. She shared that
there was departmental staff available to answer questions
about the bill.
Senator Dunleavy had questions for the sponsor. He referred
to testimony and emails pertaining to vaping language in
the bill. He asked Senator Micciche for clarification.
Senator Micciche referenced page 3 of the bill, starting on
line 10:
(d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, unless the
owner or operator prohibits it, smoking is allowed at
a retail tobacco or e-cigarette store that
(1) is in a building that
(A) is freestanding; or
(B) if it is attached to another business,
(i) has a separate entrance;
(ii) has a ventilation system vented to
an area where smoking is not
prohibited;
(iii) the other business does not serve
as a residence, child care facility,
school, or health care facility; and
(iv) smoking is limited to the use of
an e-cigarette;
(2) is not
(A) a business that is licensed under AS
04.11 to serve alcoholic beverages at an
outdoor location;
(B) a business that is licensed under AS
05.15 to sell pull-tabs; or
(C) a retail store that is within an indoor
public place or workplace.
Senator Micciche stated that the bill separated vaping from
tobacco stores; whereas the previous version of bill only
allowed free-standing tobacco stores, and for no attached
tobacco stores to allow smoking indoors. The current bill
allowed for attached vape shops to continue smoking within
the building. He asserted that he understood what the
stakeholders were saying in reference to the vaping
language, and believed their intentions were pure. He
communicated that employees should not be forced the breath
exhaled vapors. He continued that the bill treated vaping
establishments differently, as smoking was not allowed in
any place of business.
Senator Dunleavy referred to testimony that questioned the
purpose of a law that would not be enforced. He asked the
sponsor to comment.
Senator Micciche referred to the law in Anchorage, where he
recalled that three citations had been written in the 7 to
8 years the law had been in effect. He stated that
enforcement of the law was complaint-driven. The bill did
not provide for law enforcement to patrol establishments to
see if smoking occurred. He thought that evidence from
Anchorage showed that a light hand had been effective; and
if there was smoking happening in areas where there were no
complaints, there would be no enforcement action.
Senator Dunleavy asked if a state violation could
potentially be in addition to a local violation.
Senator Micciche deferred the question to the Acting
Director for the Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control
Office.
10:17:13 AM
SARA CHAMBERS, ACTING DIRECTOR, ALASKA ALCOHOL AND
MARIJUANA CONTROL OFFICE, JUNEAU, interpreted that if the
violation was only about state law, there was a restriction
to one violation. She thought there could be additional
violations relating to other topics (such as smoking
marijuana in a non-designated location) which could be
incurred by the act of smoking.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Senator Micciche to follow up with
the Department of Law and local government to get
additional information on the subject.
Senator Dunleavy relayed that his constituents had
questioned having a statewide position of law rather than
giving municipalities health powers.
Ms. Chambers did not feel the question fell within her
jurisdiction.
Senator Micciche understood that Title 29 did not allow
health powers. He felt strongly about the impacts of
exposures to Alaskan employees that he chose to sponsor the
bill as written. He thought that if there was a way to
amend Title 29, the same end could be accomplished.
Senator Dunleavy asked about the workplace exemptions in
the bill, such as fishing vessels. He asked about a
hypothetical home business in a stand-alone building in
which the owners smoked.
Senator Micciche deferred the question to staff.
Senator Dunleavy repeated the question.
10:22:11 AM
AT EASE
10:23:17 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Dunleavy understood that Senator Micciche would get
back to the committee with an answer to the question.
Senator Dunleavy asked if there were any exceptions in the
bill to a workplace in which all workers smoked.
Senator Micciche answered in the negative. He thought it
would be easy for a business owner to claim that all
employees smoked. He had heard from many employees across
the state in every district. He affirmed that he would
check on the earlier question pertaining to a private
business that did not serve the public.
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed out a section of the bill
starting page 4, line 3:
(f) Notwithstanding (b) of this section, unless the
owner or operator prohibits it, smoking is allowed
(1) in a vehicle that is a place of employment
when the vehicle is used exclusively by one
person;
(2) on a vessel when the vessel is engaged in
commercial fishing or sport charter fishing.
Senator Dunleavy asked the sponsor to review why fishing
vessels were an exception within the bill.
Senator Micciche reiterated that the bill was about
employee safety. He thought it was counter to the
objectives of the bill to force fishers out on deck in
rough seas to smoke a cigarette.
10:26:15 AM
Senator Dunleavy referred to page 2, line 14 of the bill;
pertaining to multi-family homes and apartments that shared
common living space. He wondered if there was there a way
to designate a communal area as smoking or non-smoking
predicated on the wishes of the residents.
Senator Micciche answered in the negative, and relayed that
the matter was a common complaint. He furthered that the
only responsibility of the property owner was the posting
of the non-smoking signs. He stated that it was possible to
provide a stand-alone shelter outside of the building.
Senator Dunleavy referred to a survey in the member's
packet and asked how much stock the sponsor put in the
document.
Senator Micciche thought the survey was significant, and
stated that it was a Dittman survey conducted for the
American Cancer Society (copy on file). He mentioned the
100's of businesses around the state, all of the
municipalities, and many individuals that supported the
bill. He could not think of another bill with the same
level of support. He discussed the regulation of other
activities that had lower public health exposures than
secondhand smoke.
Senator Dunleavy agreed that there were many things that
were regulated.
10:29:41 AM
Senator Olson asked about the perspective of a health
professional. He referred to the harm done to smokers and
those exposed to secondhand smoke. He discussed smoking
cessation and vaping. He asked if the bill adequately
balanced the regulations so that individuals exposed to
vaping were adequately protected.
Dr. Butler stated that he considered benefit versus risk
when reviewing a health intervention as a healthcare
provider. He agreed with previous testimony that asserted
cigarette smoke was not the same as aerosol from a vaping
device. He thought there was a great deal of anecdotal
information that suggested e-cigarettes were helpful in
smoking cessation. He referenced data that showed in past
years 80 percent of people who used e-cigarettes also used
combustible tobacco; although the number had declined. He
thought the decline suggested that there would be some
success in quitting combustible tobacco by using vaping
devices.
Dr. Butler continued to address Senator Olson's question.
He shared that had quit smoking after the first time he
observed a coronary bypass surgery. He spoke to the
addictive nature of nicotine. He referred to testimony the
previous year that nicotine was completely non-addictive,
but was unsure where the information had originated. He
stated that it was known that nicotine had a number of
actions within the brain, and early exposure seemed to
influence further brain development and increased risk of
having difficulties with nicotine cessation later in life.
10:33:33 AM
Dr. Butler relayed that the surgeon general had addressed
the risk of e-cigarettes, as it related to youth uptake. He
thought that in Alaska (as well as nationally) the most
common type of tobacco use among teens was e-cigarettes. He
appreciated the efforts of the industry to avoid sales to
youth, but noted that youth were clearly using the
products. He was uncertain about the claims that the bill
would ruin the industry, as the suggestion in the bill was
not more complicated than taking the product outside so it
was not used around people who did not wish to be exposed
to vaping aerosols.
Senator Olson surmised that Dr. Butler thought that the
bill adequately addressed the topic of individuals trying
to stop smoking cigarettes with vaping, as well as
protecting the public.
Dr. Butler answered in the affirmative.
10:35:01 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon RE-OPENED public testimony.
TERRI CROWSON, SELF, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She emphasized that there
were physical, mental, and fiscal impacts of smoking in the
workplace. She thought the legislation would make a
difference for many people. She discussed lack of choice
and living in a small community. She discussed the health
of employees in the smoking workplace. She urged the
committee to pass the bill.
Senator Micciche considered that vaping was better than
tobacco use, and mused that vaping was in the bill because
of concern over breathing exhalations of others that used
e-cigarettes. He wondered about other substances that could
be consumed in an e-cigarette or vaping device. He had
reviewed materials provided by supporters of vaping. He
discussed the concept of liberty.
Dr. Butler affirmed that other substances could be consumed
with a vaping device working as an active delivery tool. He
referred to an outbreak of "spice" (a synthetic
cannabinoid) the previous year, at which time it was found
that there were products erroneously labelled as car air
freshener that were being vaped. The substance had been
found to contain the same mix of synthetic cannabinoids
that were in some herbal products recovered from
individuals that had been hospitalized. He stressed that
the cases he mentioned were primary use rather than
secondhand exposure.
10:39:50 AM
AT EASE
10:40:34 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for committee members to provide
proposed amendments to her office by Wednesday at 5:00 p.m.
She informed that she would be working on a committee
substitute to address issues and questions that were raised
in the meeting.
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed the fiscal notes. He addressed
FN1 from the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT), which replaced a previous note and was a
zero fiscal note. He relayed that DOT had considered that
additional signage was not needed to comply with the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon believed that the department was able to
keep its existing signs.
Vice-Chair Bishop addressed FN2 from Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), which was a zero fiscal
note.
Vice-Chair Bishop addressed FN3, from Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS). He read from the 'Analysis'
section on page 2 of the fiscal note:
This bill amends AS 18.35, Public Accommodations and
Facilities, by adding Article 4, Prohibition of
Smoking in Certain Places, and repealing Article 3,
Regulation of Smoking in Public Facilities. The
Department of Environmental Conservation is currently
responsible for enforcement of Article 3 of Chapter
18.35, Regulation of Smoking in Public Facilities.
Under this bill, the Commissioner of Health and Social
Services would be responsible for ensuring compliance
and providing signage and education regarding the law,
in combination with the existing comprehensive smoking
education, tobacco use prevention, and tobacco control
program-currently provided by the department (AS
44.29.020(a)(14), Duties of the Department).
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed FN4 from the Department of
Public Safety, which was a zero fiscal note. He noted that
the bill allowed peace officers to issue citations for
violations related to smoking.
Vice-Chair Bishop addressed FN5 from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development, which was a
zero fiscal note. He read from the analysis on the second
page of the fiscal note:
The Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office does not
anticipate fiscal impact from this legislation. Any
regulations required of the Marijuana Control Board
will be included in existing regulations projects.
Senator Dunleavy asked about the likelihood of the
administration returning with the following year with a
supplemental request to make up for any perceived shortfall
from the zero fiscal notes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon informed that the committee had worked
with the department to determine that current signage was
appropriate.
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated that amendments were due to her
office Wednesday, March 15th, 2017.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the agenda for the following
day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 63 Silas Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB63 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB63 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB63 Support Letters.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB63 Supporting Documents.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 McDonald Testimony 2017.03.14 w backup.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| SB 63 McDonald Testimony 2017.03.14.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |