Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/12/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB158 | |
| SB37 | |
| SB15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 2018
1:41 p.m.
1:41:04 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jane Conway, Staff Senator Cathy Giessel, Sponsor; Tim
Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens; Allison Kulas,
Executive Director, Advisory Board of Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse; Kristin Cox, Grant Coordinator, Tobacco Prevention
and Control, National Council on Alcoholism Drug
Dependence, Juneau; Beverly Wooley, Self, Juneau; Jamie
Morgan, American Heart Association, American Stroke
Association, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Kristin Ryan, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation; Sara
Chambers, Deputy Director, Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Richard Holt,
Chair, Alaska State Board of Pharmacy, Anchorage; Leif
Holm, Board of Pharmacy, North Pole; Barry Christensen,
Alaska Pharmacist Association, Ketchikan; Hilary Martin,
Legislative Legal Services, Juneau; Joe Darnell, Manager,
Youth Tobacco Enforcement Program, Department of Health and
Social Services, Anchorage; Alex McDonald, Self, Fairbanks;
Jennifer Chikoyak, Self, Anchorage; Betty MacTavish, Self,
Kodiak; Marge Stoneking, American Lung Association,
Anchorage; Pamela Howard, Kenai Peninsula Borough School
District, Soldotna; Katie Steffens, Self, Anchorage; Joshua
Silas, Self, Soldotna.
SUMMARY
CSSB 15(FIN)
E-CIGS/TOBACCO/NICOTINE & MINORS; SALES
SB 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CSSB 37(FIN)
PHARMACY BD & STAFF;DRUG DISTRIB/MANUFACT
CSSB 37(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with a previously
published fiscal impact note: FN2 (CED).
CSSB 155(FIN)
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL MNGMT. COMPANIES
CSSB 155 (FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 158 OIL/HAZARDOUS SUB.:CLEANUP/REIMBURSEMENT
CSSB 158 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (DEC).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
SENATE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to oil and hazardous substances and
waiver of cost recovery for containment and cleanup of
certain releases; and providing for an effective
date."
1:42:17 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that bill was previously heard on
April 9, 2018.
1:42:56 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via
teleconference), relayed that the department did not have
anything to add on the record for the bill.
Representative Wilson was in support of the bill. She
appreciated time to offer amendments but could not find a
way to apply the bill retroactively without complications.
She would not be offering any amendments to the bill.
1:44:47 PM
Representative Kawasaki supported moving the bill. He
expressed concerns that Section 3 of the bill left the
clean-up responsibility up to the state for individuals who
could afford to pay the costs. He referred to Page 2, lines
11 through 12 of the bill:
(3) the person took immediate measures upon discovery
of the release to contain the release where possible;
Representative Kawasaki asked about the retroactivity
clause. Ms. Ryan responded that he was referring to an
existing statute. She explained that upon discovery of a
release the property owner was expected to take immediate
action to stop the release and minimize the long-term
damage from the leak. The bill included a retroactive
clause that stated if the homeowner took immediate remedial
action the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
would not bill them retroactively to the date of the
legislation. Representative Kawasaki referred to Section 3
regarding the department's ability to waive the response
costs and the use of the word "may." He asked if the
department intended to adopt the waiver regulations. Ms.
Ryan responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the zero fiscal note FN1 (DEC),
from DEC. He reported that the division expected a loss in
cost recovery revenue of approximately $60.0 annually.
Representative Kawasaki referred to page 2 of the fiscal
note analysis that stated:
The Division of Spill Prevention and Response will
absorb the cost of promulgating regulations.
Representative Kawasaki referred to previous committee
discussion regarding whether agencies should be expected to
cover the costs of promulgating regulations and noted DEC's
absorption of the expense.
1:48:57 PM
Representative Wilson cited the analysis on page 2 of the
fiscal note that stated regulations would be adopted by FY
2020. She asked whether the division would have to
retroactively charge costs. Ms. Ryan relayed that the date
was inserted arbitrarily, however the division intended to
implement regulations immediately upon passage of the bill.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSSB 158 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSSB 158 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (DEC).
1:51:09 PM
AT EASE
1:51:22 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 37(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Board of Pharmacy; relating to
the licensing of certain entities and inspection of
certain facilities located outside the state; relating
to drug supply chain security; creating a position of
executive administrator for the Board of Pharmacy; and
providing for an effective date."
1:52:08 PM
JANE CONWAY, STAFF SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, SPONSOR, relayed
that SB 37 brought Alaska into compliance with the Drug
Quality Security Act (DQSA), which created a new license
category for "Out-of-State Wholesale Drug Distributors"
established in 2013 to provide oversight to large scale
drug compounders. She expounded that currently, the Board
of Pharmacy had no authority to regulate out-of-state
wholesale drug distributors and the bill provided the
authority. The legislation allowed Alaska to act to
eliminate wholesalers looking for loopholes in the
regulatory system and ensure that out-of-state applicants
seeking licensure comply with the same regulations as
Alaskan wholesalers. She reported that only one drug
wholesaler operated in Alaska; McKesson Drugs Company.
Ms. Conway relayed an incident relating to wholesale drug
distributors. She detailed that in 2012, contaminated
medications were distributed which resulted in the deaths
of people from meningitis. In 2012, a nationwide fungal
meningitis outbreak resulted in 751 patients in 20 states
being diagnosed and 64 patients in 9 states dying. The
outbreak was linked to a compounding facility in
Massachusetts. It was found that the employees were
producing medications in an unsafe manner in unsanitary
conditions and the company allowed the medications to be
shipped out anyway. The tragedy highlighted the dangers of
unregulated, large scale compounders. She communicated that
SB 37 ensured that prescriptions were pure, sanitary and
safe. Passage of the bill would create a more secure drug
supply chain and ensure that Alaskans were receiving non-
counterfeit, unadulterated medications. She delineated that
when a pharmacy, doctor, or hospital in Alaska ordered
supplies of prescription medications, they may go to the
one wholesale distributer in Alaska(McKesson), but they may
also order from one of hundreds of others in the Lower 48.
The bill required any out-of-state drug distributor or
outsourcing facility to follow specific guidelines
including: obtaining a license in Alaska, authorizing
inspection by a designee of the board, appointing an agent
before shipping, mailing, or delivering prescription drugs
to a licensee in the state or advertising in the state. She
pointed out that that last provision identified a
responsible party (agent) to serve subpoenas for citing
infractions or filing suit in case of problem. She
continued that an outsourcing facility must comply with the
Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) of 2013. She defined
that an "outsourcing facility" was a facility in one
geographical location that was engaged in the compounding
of sterile drugs for a facility at another geographical
location. They were companies that made large batches of
compounded drugs that had the highest risk of
contamination. The Division of Corporate, Business, and
Professional Licensing (DCBPL) estimated that registering
and regulating the drug wholesalers equated to
approximately 400 new licensees.
Ms. Conway offered that a provision of the bill created an
executive administrator position for the Alaska Board of
Pharmacy. The board had ever-increasing responsibilities
under several healthcare reform bills and opioid response
legislation that passed recently. The position would allow
the board more capacity to respond more quickly to issues
and concerns, manage the licensing of new wholesalers,
implement statutes and regulations, and manage the multiple
new responsibilities relating to the Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program (PDMP). The board currently relied on
the division for routine operations assistance. The
position would be paid by the fees supplied by the
wholesale drug distributor licensees along with current
licensee fees and would not impact the general fund.
1:59:17 PM
Representative Wilson questioned whether Ms. Conway was
aware that the Massachusetts facility was inspected but no
one performed any follow up. Ms. Conway deferred to a
pharmacist online to answer the question. Representative
Wilson was aware of the circumstances and relayed that the
Massachusetts manufacturer was regulated and fined. She was
concerned about the federal mandate requiring the
legislation and wondered what repercussions the state would
incur if the legislation was not adopted. Ms. Conway was
unsure what the federal government would do. She suspected
that the message to consumers would be that Alaska did not
care about the quality of its medicine. She thought that
Alaskan consumers expected the drugs to be manufactured in
a regulated facility that maintained quality control.
Representative Wilson declared that she did care but
explained that her concern focused on requiring the state
to perform the inspections. She thought the mandate would
result in additional liability for the state. She asked
whether her assumption was correct. Ms. Conway responded
that it was possible that the state would perform
inspections. However, since most other states required
licensure the criteria adopted by other states would likely
comply with Alaska's criteria. The inspection could just be
a matter of reciprocity with other states licensure that
would place an approved wholesaler in another state on an
Alaskan list of approved facilities. Representative Wilson
asked whether Ms. Conway was aware of any problematic
incidents with wholesalers in Alaska. Ms. Conway was not
aware of any incidents. She referred to a handout in
member's packets titled "The Deadly Counterfeit Drug Trade
Thrives in Alaska" (copy on file). She indicated that there
were several places in the wholesale drug distribution
process where counterfeiting actions could occur.
Representative Wilson asked how the bill worked. She asked
what provisions in the bill identified where the
counterfeiting actions could occur and prevented the
activity.
2:04:19 PM
Ms. Conway responded that bill licensed the entities of the
wholesale drug distributors, the outsourcing facilities,
and the third-party logistical providers; all would be
licensed under the bill. She maintained that the licensing
of all entities handling the drugs prevented counterfeit
activities. Representative Wilson mentioned that
compounding drugs were recently excluded in the state's
active employee health plan. She asked whether the
legislation would cover compound drugs with passage of the
bill. Ms. Conway deferred to the appropriate available
testifier to answer the question.
2:06:08 PM
Representative Kawasaki noted she had mentioned that
currently there were 400 out-of-state drug wholesalers
engaged in business activities in Alaska. He asked whether
his statement was correct. Ms. Conway answered that the 400
number was an estimate. She relayed that Alaskan
pharmacists avoided engaging with most of the out-of-state
drug wholesalers because they did not know who were
reputable. The division had informed her that many out-of-
state companies were inquiring whether the state required
licensing, some wanting to take advantage of the unlicensed
environment. There was a limited number of suppliers that
Alaska pharmacists would purchase drugs from and the bill
would provide the larger estimated pool of wholesalers.
Representative Kawasaki related a scenario where an out-of-
state drug wholesaler did not want to become licensed in
Alaska. He asked whether the bill contained transitional
language that allowed an Alaskan heath care entity to
continue to do business with them. Ms. Conway could not
imagine a wholesaler not wanting to sell to vendors in
Alaska and not obtaining a license. Representative Kawasaki
restated his question. Ms. Conway responded that all but 4
other states required licensure so the wholesalers were
registered in many other states and was common practice.
Representative Kawasaki asked whether the out-of-state drug
wholesaler regulations were standardized and similar in
every state. Ms. Conway replied that the state of Alaska
would apply the current set of regulations it applied to
McKesson to the out-of-state drug wholesalers.
2:10:55 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked why the Board of Pharmacy
could not just allow out-of-state drug wholesalers that met
the criteria of another state to operate in Alaska and gain
an Alaskan license by merely qualifying for licensure in
another state. He thought it would save the time and effort
required to develop regulation and inspect facilities. Ms.
Conway indicated that every state had adopted their own
criteria; some maybe more or less stringent. She restated
the possibility for reciprocity with states that had the
same criteria as Alaska's. She expounded that there was a
national certifier called the "Verified Accredited
Wholesale Distributor" (VAWD) but was only used by 3 states
due to the registration fee costs. However, 23 states
accepted the certification.
2:13:27 PM
Representative Pruitt guessed the transition time would be
established through regulation. He cited the two effective
dates in the bill, an immediate effective date allowing
time to establish regulations and the hiring of an
executive director. The second effective date was July 1,
2019 when the law would be implemented. He asked whether
the July 1 date offered enough time "to allow the
transition to take place."
SARA CHAMBERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), thought the time frame was adequate for
notifying involved entities and allowing them input in the
board's public process for regulation adoption.
Representative Pruitt asked whether the date provided
enough time for the public to provide input on the proposed
regulations. Ms. Chambers answered in the affirmative.
2:15:47 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
2:16:32 PM
RICHARD HOLT, CHAIR, ALASKA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified on behalf of the
board in support of the bill. He explained that the
legislation provided the board two imperative authorities:
to license out-of-state wholesale drug distributors who
were shipping pharmaceuticals into the state, and out-
sourcing facilities and whole sale logistics providers. The
other authority allowed the board to hire an executive
administrator using the licensing fees. The board
determined that the licensure was necessary to fulfill its
responsibility to ensure the practice of pharmacy was
acting in the best interest of Alaskans. He emphasized that
the out-of-state wholesalers shipped anything they wanted
to the state because of the lack of oversight from the
board. He relayed that the board's licensee examiner
received many inquiries from out-of-state wholesalers
asking whether the state required a license. He reiterated
that the state was unaware of what the wholesalers were
shipping into the state. He relayed that recently a
registered out-of-state wholesaler turned its license back
over to the state and choose to operate as an outsourcing
facility to avoid oversight. He commented that the board's
workload continued to increase, and the executive director
position was necessary to assist the board in carrying out
its statutory duties. He urged members to vote "yes" on the
bill.
Representative Kawasaki mentioned that the state typically
joined interstate compacts for protections and
efficiencies. He asked whether "it would be easier to
dovetail" off the other 47 states that already required
licensure. DR. Holt responded that when the board drafted
regulations they examined the provisions other states
adopted. The board would dovetail regulations that were
appropriate but would tailor regulations to ensure
Alaskan's safety and that they met the state's needs.
2:20:56 PM
Representative Wilson asked if Dr. Holt felt that the bill
would help restore state employee benefits for compounded
drugs. Mr. Holt replied that the state currently had
regulations for compounding in 12 AAC.52.440 [Alaska
Administrative Codes]. He suggested that the issue was an
insurance related issue. Representative Wilson conveyed
that the employees received notice that the coverage was
eliminated due to safety concerns, yet state retirees'
compounded drug prescriptions were still covered. She hoped
the bill would grant the state more confidence in the
safety of compounded drugs. She appreciated all the work
accomplished by the board. Dr. Holt affirmed that the bill
would provide that state more assurances regarding the
safety of compounding drugs.
2:23:11 PM
LEIF HOLM, BOARD OF PHARMACY, NORTH POLE (via
teleconference), wanted to echo Dr. Holt's sentiments on
behalf of the board in support of the bill. He offered his
testimony from the perspective of an independent
pharmacists. He conveyed that ultimately, pharmacists
wanted to have confidence that the medications they
purchased were safe. He relayed that he restricted his
purchasing with primarily one large wholesalers because he
could not quickly asses where the small wholesalers' drugs
were coming from. Pharmacists were always searching for the
lowest prices but revealed that it was potentially
dangerous with some of the "unscrupulous characters" that
were making substandard drugs, and the situation was
serious. He noted that the state currently regulated in-
state wholesalers and he did not believe it would take much
effort to implement the regulations. He mentioned the
likelihood of the board reciprocally accepting other states
standards and did not anticipate having to travel to
another state to do inspections. He was available for
questions.
Representative Kawasaki asked how Dr. Holm currently
determined who was a legitimate wholesaler. Dr. Holm voiced
that the situation was difficult. He elaborated that he
almost exclusively used the single wholesaler
AmerisourceBergen Corporation but at times he had to use
another wholesaler and was not able to reliably determine
the reputation of another supplier. He wished he could rely
on a state website that listed state licensed wholesalers.
Representative Kawasaki asked how comfortable he was with
using other state regulations and if he agreed that a
wholesaler who was reputable for another state was probably
a legitimate source for Alaska. Dr. Holm would agree as
long as the standards mirrored Alaska's criteria. He
deduced that he could go to another state's website to
determine whether a wholesaler was licensed and then check
the thoroughness of the regulations. He emphasized that he
trusted the decisions the board made and would rather
consult the state's licensure where he played a role.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that the bill provided for
an executive administrator at a range 23 attached to the
new licensure and wanted to find a less expensive way to
accomplish the licensing. He wondered whether there were
model regulations from one state that the board approved
of, whereby the board could adopt as their own rather than
using an executive administrator.
2:29:49 PM
Dr. Holm asked for a restatement of the concern.
Representative Kawasaki wanted to find out whether there
was a cheaper way to accomplish the licensure work by board
regulation. Dr. Holm answered that the position was covered
by the wholesale licensing fees. He noted that the
profession was constantly evolving, and it was difficult to
keep up with the changes. He countered Representative
Kawasaki's notion that the board could do the regulatory
work on their own. He remarked on the busy lives of board
pharmacists. He shared that he had four jobs with his
various pharmacies besides carrying out his board duties,
which was very time consuming. He noted that other boards
like the medical board and nursing board had an executive
administrator. He reported that in person meetings were
much more effective than teleconferenced meetings and
reported that the board was restricted to two in person
meetings per year. He believed that the executive position
would act as a liaison, board work would be expedited, and
thought it would be easier for the board to stay on top of
what other states were doing. He would find it arduous to
find the time to analyze many other states regulations. He
acknowledged that he had volunteered for the board, but it
did not mean the job did not require significant effort.
2:33:18 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether a complaint against
an out-of-state wholesaler would force a state investigator
to travel to the state to perform an investigation, which
was typically a significant cost to the board. She asked
whether the investigatory costs would be paid through the
wholesale licensure or the profession's general licensure
fees. Dr. Holm responded that he did not foresee a scenario
that required an Alaskan inspector to travel out of state.
He thought that as violations were occurring they would be
reported to all states boards. Representative Wilson
wondered how the licensure funds would be disbursed in the
eventuality of an investigation. Dr. Holm did not know. He
supposed that inspection costs would come out of the
pharmacy licensure "pot" that included fees from the
technicians, pharmacists, and wholesalers.
Representative Wilson spoke about compounding
prescriptions. She asked how much revenue Mr. Holm had lost
because the state eliminated employee coverage for
compounded medications. Dr. Holm answered he lost thousands
of dollars in revenues and many patients were unable to
obtain their medications due to high costs. Representative
Wilson asked if the state would realize it made a mistake
due to the safety guarantees embedded in the bill. Dr. Holm
stated it depended on whether it was done for safety or
financial reasons. He could not speak to exactly what would
happen. Representative Wilson thanked Mr. Holm and
acknowledged his work.
2:36:47 PM
Representative Pruitt asked whether the board was
comfortable with the licensure fee structure that would
facilitate supporting a new executive director position. He
asked whether the licensing fees would increase. Dr. Holm
responded that the board did not expect an increase in
existing licensing fees. The fees collected from the
wholesale licenses were expected to fully fund the
position. He spoke with wholesalers that supported the
licensure and expected to pay licensing fees.
Representative Pruitt recounted that there was an
expectation the board would not need to increase license
fees to pay for the executive director even though the
director would carry out duties other than duties required
for the wholesaler licensing. He continued that there was a
problem with many boards where the current fee structure
could not cover the cost of an investigation. He asked if
the board was concerned that when out-of-state
investigations did occur the wholesaler licensing fees
would increase causing "push back" from the wholesalers.
2:40:15 PM
Dr. Holm understood Representative Pruitt's point and
thought it was hypothetical regarding investigations. He
understood the larger investigatory issues pertaining to
boards. He noted that the pharmacy board was a well-funded
board that had never operated with a negative balance. He
opined that the board would deal with the issue if or when
it happened. He thought safety was the number one concern
with moving forward with the licensure. Representative
Pruitt agreed that safety should be the primary concern. He
wanted the industry to know that the expectation of the
state was the licensure used a "fee for service model" and
fees could increase to cover board costs. He asked whether
the board was comfortable with the structure. He supported
moving the bill forward if the board was in support. Dr.
Holm could not speak for everyone and could not speak to
how the board would decide on future fee increases but he
would support "whatever decision needed to be made by the
board to make this happen."
Representative Tilton referred to the fiscal note from
DCCED that stated there was no fiscal impact on the public
or private sectors in the state as the licensing would
impact entities outside of the state [second paragraph on
page 2 of the fiscal note]. She was concerned that a
potential impact could happen in the future. She wondered
whether any latent impact could increase costs to the
consumer. Mr. Holm answered that he did not anticipate any
fiscal impact on the wholesaler; the fees were minimal for
a wholesaler. He deduced that the bill's impact could
potentially lower costs by offering more possibilities for
the pharmacists to source lower costs drugs.
2:44:50 PM
BARRY CHRISTENSEN, ALASKA PHARMACIST ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation
on behalf of the association. He reported that the
association attempted to address the issue through
legislation for over four years. The membership felt
strongly that the pharmacies needed the safety assurance
and a trusted source to identify and verify wholesalers. He
concurred with the previous statements regarding the
inability to validate wholesalers. He added that the
national association for the drug wholesale industry
reported its support for the bill as currently written. He
reiterated that the licensure was the standard practice. He
appreciated the work of the board and endorsed the need for
the administrative position.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson reiterated her question regarding the
distribution of investigative costs under the new license.
Ms. Conway understood that any investigatory cost was borne
by the entity being investigated. She voiced that the
sponsors envisioned that investigations would be carried
out by contracting out an investigatory work to a qualified
provider in the same state the investigation was necessary.
She stated if there was a problem in California, they would
contract with the proper entity in California. She did not
envision "sending people out all across the nation to
inspect." Representative Wilson remarked that
investigations had been "lopsided" with most of the state's
boards increasing licensing fees. She reiterated her
question regarding how a costly investigation would affect
the boards licensing fees. Ms. Conway deferred to Ms.
Chambers for the answer.
2:50:53 PM
Ms. Chambers answered that the division, which included all
43 of the state's license programs, did not have the
statutory authority to recoup investigative costs directly
from the entity being investigated. She relayed that
penalties and fines imposed were deposited into the general
fund. The statutes required that investigatory costs were
born by all programs under their licensing board. The
division tried to determine whether there were
disproportionate investigatory costs per license type. She
hypothesized that if investigative costs for out-of-state
wholesalers were significantly higher than costs for Alaska
pharmacies the division would work with the board to raise
the wholesaler licensing fees. She relayed that HB 90 OCC.
(Licensing Fees; Investigation Costs) was introduced to
remedy the situation or there might be legislation in the
future to address the problem. However, currently the
division could not charge any investigative fees or recoup
investigative costs; the money was recovered from the
licensing program. Representative Wilson understood the
issue. However, she wondered how wholesaler license
investigatory costs would be split under the pharmacist
licensure. Ms. Chambers responded that AS 08.01.065
required that fees were grouped together but allowed the
discretion for the board to increase or lower fees
according to license type. However, there was not explicit
language that separated license type; the statute covered
all licenses regulated under a particular board.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the one previously published
fiscal impact note from the DCCED, FN1 (CED). The bill
reflected the cost recovered from board fees in the amount
of $173.3 thousand in FY 2019 and decreased to $157.5
thousand in the out years.
2:55:14 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to REPORT CSSB 37(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 37(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2 (CED).
2:56:00 PM
AT EASE
3:00:20 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 15(FIN)
"An Act relating to possession of an electronic
smoking product or a product containing nicotine by a
minor and to selling or giving a product containing
nicotine or an electronic smoking product to a minor;
relating to business license endorsements to sell
cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, products containing
tobacco, electronic smoking products, or products
containing nicotine; and relating to citations for
certain offenses concerning tobacco, products
containing nicotine, or electronic smoking products."
3:00:20 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, read a prepared
statement:
For anyone not acquainted with E-cigarettes, I have
prepared a brief slideshow, to play in the background
as I discuss the purpose of this bill. These images
will introduce, or remind, you of their common
components, sample styles and brands, what are now a
multitude of exotic flavorings, and marketing
strategies. This bill is about protecting our children
from becoming addicted to nicotine. It is about
clearly restricting sales to and possession of these
products to youth under the age of 19.
The use of electronic cigarettes is an exploding new
trend in smoking. It is commonly referred to as
"vaping." Public health advocacy, with the help of
proven scientific evidence, is winning the war against
tobacco. Use of traditional tobacco cigarette and
related products is clearly on the decline. Tobacco is
a dying industry. The tobacco manufacturers have
acknowledged this trend and are responding with a
barrage of new fashionable smoking options, in the
form of E-Cigarettes and related modular devices
designed to appeal to a wide range of consumers.
Currently, according to the US Center for Disease
Control, there are in the neighborhood of 4 million
middle and high school students using these products
nationwide. In Alaska, the numbers show about 15-25
percent of our students have at least been exposed to,
if they are not regularly using E-cigarette products.
See, there is a loophole.
While it is currently technically illegal to buy or
sell nicotine products to minors, it is not illegal to
possess E-Cig products. Nor are all of the products
supposedly containing nicotine, supposedly.
Furthermore, there is currently no provision for law
enforcement or investigators to enforce or issue
violations for possession. Nor cite vendors for
selling E-products to minors, the penalties are pretty
weak right now. And the industry and youth know it.
An informal survey our office commissioned last March,
asking Alaska school teachers and administrators about
E-Cigarette use in our schools, showed that 78 percent
of educators are concerned with a current or
foreseeable problem with youth access to and use of E-
cigarette products. Meanwhile, the feds, public health
advocates, state and local governments, schools and
communities are all struggling to catch up and respond
to this fast-moving industry.
There are a lot of questions, perhaps the biggest one
being, "Are these products safe?" and "should we be
tacitly allowing our children to take up this
activity?" The latest research available, not funded
by big tobacco, shows the health benefits being
dubious at best. I would concede that the chemicals
used in E-cig products may be safer than smoking
tobacco, but we would should not be too quick to
accept these chemicals as themselves being safe.
The FDA has approved of many of the known chemicals
used in E-juice to be safe enough for ingestion, but
not as an inhalant, long-term effects are just
beginning to be studied. The most common and intuitive
approach to addressing a policy on this new era of
smoking products is to treat them in the exact same
manner as we have structured tobacco policies. And
that is what this bill does.
We start with the commercial activity and the vendors
selling the products, to include a requirement for a
special endorsement on their business license, just
like tobacco retailers. This is the only way we can
effectively identify who is out there selling these
products, and in turn provided state agency authority
to monitor sales activity and enforce violations, with
stiffer penalties.
Currently, there are several hidden shops out there,
selling these products, but by the nature of their
business name, would give no indication they are
selling E-products.
Examples: Tesoro in the valley, Zooks downtown, Lola's
Filipino restaurant and mini grocery store, and the
Gas N Go Coffee hut, by Western Auto. Currently the
only way to find out that these vendors are selling E-
products is by word of mouth, or by driving around and
visiting random stores.
In wrap up, and before we get into the nuts and bolts
of the bill, I would like to take a moment to address
some of the rhetoric you will likely be hearing in
opposition to this bill. You will likely hear that we
do not need this bill, that the feds already have laws
in place restricting youth access and enforce those
laws. The fact is the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental
Health Administration Reorganization Act of 1992
requires states to enact and enforce laws restricting
youth access to tobacco products. The FDA does have a
limited enforcement resources, that are usually
contracted out for occasional compliance checks, but
penalties consist of little more than a slap on the
wrist for vendors. I can go into some detail about
federal enforcement if you wish. But, we do need this
bill for meaningful monitoring and enforcement
purposes.
You may hear that the paperwork for getting the
tobacco endorsement is onerous and hurts businesses.
Standard business license applications are 4-pages and
takes about 10 minutes to complete. You check a box
for the endorsement and fill out a 5th page. The cost
of a license is $50 per year and $100 for and
endorsement per location, which were not onerous or
damaging to business. This is a very lucrative
business.
You may hear that these products are a miracle for
smokers trying to quit, which may be true in some
cases, most typically for older adults who have smoked
for many years. However, that is entirely irrelevant
to this bill, as adult smoking habits are not the
target here. We are trying to prevent youngsters from
taking up the habit in the first place.
You may hear that these are not tobacco products and
should be not be associated with tobacco, but they are
related. In August 2017, the FDA ruled that for
practical and regulatory purposes, these products
should be treated as tobacco products. After all, it
mimics traditional smoking: they often look like a
cigarette, glow like one, and produce smoke. It's just
another kind of smoking. However, they are available
in all the flavors and aromas of chocolate chip
cookies, apple pie, or cotton candy. You may hear that
these products are harmless because they don't always
contain Nicotine. That is unproven.
There are currently no requirements to verify or
regulate labelling and marketing of this E-juice. A
2016 study in North Dakota found that 51 percent of
the samples tested contained higher levels of nicotine
than was reported on the labels, sometimes up to 173
percent more than was labelled. Even this little
bottle here, which I bought at the Gas N Go for $1 (no
tax), says "Zero Nicotine" but on the side in fine
print it reads "may contain trace levels" of nicotine.
In that same North Dakota study, 43 percent of E-
liquid containers labelled as having no nicotine
actually had significant levels of nicotine present.
We should be skeptical of nicotine labelling of these
products.
You may hear that everyone wants to keep these
products out of youths' hands, but it is in their
hands, and readily so.
Most vendors are legitimately making that effort. But
some are not. If this industry is truly supportive of
restricting youth access to E-Cigarette products and
nicotine, there should be no opposition to this bill.
In closing, this bill is about closing a loophole. It
is about giving our state agencies the tools to
monitor and enforce these restrictions. The urgency is
growing. Senate Bill 15 would have us approach e-
cigarettes with severe caution on behalf of young
Alaskans.
Thank you for allowing us to place the issue on the
table.
[The presenter played a silent video depicting vape
products while making his presentation].
3:13:19 PM
Representative Kawasaki wondered about the comments that
teens introduced to vaping were more likely to develop a
habit. He was unsure to what extent that kids would develop
an addiction to vaping. He wondered whether scientific
evidence existed that proved the statement. Mr. Lamkin
indicated there was a "growing body of evidence that vaping
was a "gateway activity." He added that nicotine was proven
to be addictive and frequently engaging in an activity that
delivered nicotine developed into a habit.
Vice-Chair Gara supported the bill. He had a question for
Legislative Legal Services. Vice-Chair Gara referred to
page 2 of the bill regarding punishment for possession of
the product. He asked about the fine and wanted to
determine the level of criminality of the fine. He
indicated that fines were considered "quasi-criminal." He
wondered what the levels of fines and violations were. He
wanted to ensure the fine for a 19 year -old in possession
of e-cigarettes was a very low-level offense.
HILARY MARTIN, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), reported that a violation was defined as a
non-criminal offense, therefore a fine was only a penalty.
She detailed that under AS 12.53.050 a default fine for a
violation was $500. The court ruled that the fine could not
be so high that it signified criminality.
3:17:29 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if either a violation or a fine would
end up on someone's court record. Ms. Hillary believed
violations would show up on someone's record and were
posted on Court View. She restated that a fine was only
penalty. Vice-Chair Gara asked whether there was anything
lower than a violation that would not appear on records.
Ms. Martin responded that a violation was the lowest
penalty. Vice-Chair Gara asked if the type of violation
would be listed in the records. Ms. Martin thought that the
violation referenced the statute that was violated.
Mr. Lamkin noted that the provisions in the bill were the
existing statute for cigarettes and tobacco. The bill
inserted e-cigarettes into existing statute. Vice-Chair
Gara understood the bill.
Representative Wilson was having difficulty with non-
nicotine products and the potential for a violation. She
asked whether there were products that did not contain
nicotine that were included in the bill. Mr. Lamkin
answered that it was uncertain whether the products were
truly nicotine free. Products that were labeled nicotine
free were found to contain nicotine when tested. In
addition, current research was discovering the "dubious"
effects of other chemicals contained in the e-cigarette
"juice." He noted that all juice contained Propylene
Glycol, which was an anti-freeze chemical. He believed that
our bodies were designed to "just breathe air" and did not
believe the products were safe regardless of nicotine
contents.
3:22:49 PM
Representative Wilson asked why the issue was not left up
to parental choice. Mr. Lamkin maintained that the question
applied to any number of issues related to parental
involvement. He informed committee members that a provision
in the bill allowed parents to "make the accommodation" if
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the
products for smoking cessation, which it had not.
Representative Wilson asked if the product was approved as
a cessation product by the FDA, it would not fall under the
bill and under such circumstances could a parent provide
the product to their children. Mr. Lamkin answered in the
affirmative and added that the products had to be used only
as a cessation product for the child.
3:24:26 PM
Representative Grenn asked how many states had "closed the
loophole." Mr. Lamkin responded that approximately 20
states had adopted the regulations. Representative Grenn
asked who regulated e-cigarette liquid. Mr. Lamkin answered
that the FDA was just beginning to regulate the industry.
Representative Grenn asked whether the hope was that a
detailed ingredient list would be published. Mr. Lamkin
answered in the affirmative. He heard antidotes that
generic 55-gallon drums of juice could be purchased from
China and an individual could concoct their own potion at
home. Representative Grenn referred to Page 2, Section 2.
He wanted to better understand the section that allowed a
child under 19 to obtain an e-cigarette as a cessation
device from a pharmacist without a prescription. Mr. Lamkin
reiterated the answer he gave to Representative Wilson. He
restated that the product had to be approved by the FDA as
a cessation device, was marketed as a cessation device, and
was either prescribed by a health care professional, or by
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), or
provided by the parents or a pharmacist. Representative
Grenn asked whether e-cigarettes were an FDA approved
cessation device. Mr. Lamkin asserted that in no way the
products were approved as a cessation devise by the FDA.
3:28:15 PM
Representative Tilton asked whether someone under the age
of 19 who was in possession of e-cigarettes was a violation
and the highest charge one would receive. Mr. Lamkin
stressed that the real target of the bill were the vendors
and the bill was not about giving teenagers tickets.
Representative Tilton relayed a story from personal
experience. She asked if he had seen the devices that
dispensed vitamins in a type of vaping devise. Mr. Lamkin
answered in the negative. He suggested that manufacturers
would find creative ways to market the devices.
Representative Tilton confirmed that the devices were
available with vitamins.
3:32:08 PM
Representative Kawasaki ascertained that currently a
business that did not sell tobacco products could sell e-
cigarettes. Mr. Lamkin responded that the bill provided
endorsements that enabled vendors to sell only e-cigarettes
or only tobacco products or both. Representative Kawasaki
surmised that a business could obtain an e-cigarette
endorsement and not sell any products containing nicotine
and would be licensed separately than a vaping shop that
would sell both. Mr. Lamkin replied that "nicotine
products" was the "distinction" in the bill. He delineated
that all the vaping "hardware" was considered a nicotine
product. Representative Kawasaki asked whether businesses
that were currently selling the vaping equipment and juices
that did not contain nicotine and no other tobacco products
would need an endorsement to continue selling vaping
products under the bill. Mr. Lamkin clarified that the bill
offered 2 separate endorsements; one was for tobacco
products and the other was for e-cigarettes and its
components; pens and juice regardless of whether the juice
contained nicotine.
3:35:20 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked whether underage youth could
legally purchase a bong in a vape shop. Mr. Lamkin believed
bongs were associated with the consumption of marijuana and
was not the subject of SB 15. Representative Kawasaki asked
whether a youth could purchase a tobacco pipe. Mr. Lamkin
replied that pipes were treated like tobacco products and
purchases were restricted to individuals under 19 years of
age and reiterated that it was similar to purchasing vaping
hardware which would be restricted to youth under 19 years
old.
Representative Guttenberg reiterated similar questions as
the previous inquiry regarding the vaping hardware. Mr.
Lamkin restated that the all the products associated with
vaping was covered under the bill and restricted from
purchase for youth under the age of 19. Representative
Guttenberg assumed the devices were preloaded. Mr. Lamkin
responded that not all devises were pre-loaded; the
components were modular. Therefore, the hardware was
regulated.
3:38:47 PM
Co-Chair Seaton OPENED public testimony.
3:38:59 PM
ALLISON KULAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY BOARD OF
ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE, related that in her previous job
she worked as a Tobacco Regulatory Science Fellow with the
National Academy of Medicine placed in the Food and Drug
Administration Center for Tobacco Products. She was not
speaking on behalf of the FDA but used the knowledge gained
to "protect Alaska's children." She believed that SB 15 was
"an important step to prevent youth from tobacco products."
Research had proven that nicotine was highly addictive,
harmful to teenager's brain development and exposure to
nicotine left them more susceptible to nicotine and other
substance additions. Nicotine also reduced impulse control
and was attributed to mood disorders and deficits in
attention and cognition. Nicotine in any form was unsafe
for use, yet e-cigarettes were the most commonly used
tobacco products. A newly released report discovered that
e-cigarettes increased the risk of using combustible
cigarettes. She commented that SB 15 was consistent with
the current laws that restricted tobacco products.
Preventing illegal sales to minors protected the nations
youth from the harmful effects of nicotine. Alaska had a
proven track record of effective enforcement of businesses
with a tobacco endorsement. The bill clarified the business
rules and restrictions on the sale of tobacco products by
including e-cigarettes in the existing statutes and further
protected Alaska's youth. She urged member to vote in favor
of the bill.
Representative Grenn asked whether evidence existed that
tobacco companies were manufacturing e-cigarette products.
Ms. Kulas responded that the FDA did not know all the
manufacturers of the products. She indicated that some
existing tobacco companies were marketing the products
along with small businesses. Representative Grenn asked if
the marketing of e-cigarette were targeted at youth. Ms.
Kulas answered in the affirmative and expounded that the e-
cigarette advertising was like cigarette advertising. The
FDA had spent ample funding to develop marketing campaigns
for youth to counter the advertising exposure. She reported
that in October 2017 the FDA developed a digital campaign
aimed at e-cigarette youth prevention.
3:43:51 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether there were any
other products that people ingested without any safety
standards because it appeared that e-cigarettes were
totally unregulated. He wondered whether any existing
standards applied to e-cigarettes and confirmed what was in
the products. Ms. Kulas answered that the FDA did not know
what ingredients were in the products. The FDA was
currently accepting applications that included the liquid
product ingredient list and FDA's toxicologists were
attempting to identify what was in the product and if the
ingredients were safe. She noted that some ingredients when
ingested were designated by the FDA as Generally Recognized
As Safe (GRAS) but it was unknown if they were harmful when
inhaled.
3:45:32 PM
KRISTIN COX, GRANT COORDINATOR, TOBACCO PREVENTION AND
CONTROL, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ALCOHOLISM DRUG DEPENDENCE,
JUNEAU, supported SB 15. She shared some statistical
information. She indicated that flavors attracted children
and 81 percent of youth tobacco users chose a flavored
product as their first product and 25 percent believed that
flavored tobacco products were safer. However, they were
unsafe because they initiated youth into cigarette smoking
and nicotine addiction. Three recently published studies in
medical journals determined that youth that used e-
cigarettes were 4 to 7 times more likely to become tobacco
smokers. She added that the effect was "unilateral" meaning
cigarette smoking was not associated with increased vaping.
She concluded that restricting youth access to e-cigarettes
would reduce youth smoking and adult addiction rates.
3:47:23 PM
BEVERLY WOOLEY, SELF, JUNEAU, was retired but previously
served as the Director of the Division of Public Health
with the state and the municipality. She related that in
the 1990's the state knew that large numbers of retailers
were selling tobacco products to children due to lack of
accountability. The state instituted enforcement and the
number of incidents decreased to 5 percent. She emphasized
that SB 15 would establish the same laws that regulated the
tobacco industry for e-cigarettes and close the loophole
and provide enforcement. She underscored that edibles that
were considered healthy were much different when turned
into an aerosol or combusted and inhaled into the lungs.
She noted a state-wide study where researchers went to some
of the "vape" shops and found they were more likely (36
percent of shops) to sell e-cigarettes to children while
established retailers only sold the product 5 percent of
the time to children. She believed in protecting children.
She urged members to move the bill out of committee.
3:50:06 PM
JAMIE MORGAN, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN STROKE
ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU, spoke in support of SB 15 for the
associations and urged members to move the bill from
committee. She reiterated that e-cigarettes were harmful
and unregulated. She reported that in the 2016 surgeon
general report on e-cigarette use showed that e-cigarette
use in children increased the likelihood of cigarette use.
She related that the associations supported including e-
cigarettes in laws that restricted access to children.
3:51:39 PM
JOE DARNELL, MANAGER, YOUTH TOBACCO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), related that he was the Chief Investigator
for Tobacco Enforcement for the state. He spoke in support
of the bill. He cited the states statewide vape shop study
and reported that in 2016 he encountered a 26 percent sell
rate for vaping products versus 5.4 percent for tobacco
products; in Anchorage the sell rate was 50 percent. He
added that in 2017 the statewide sell rate jumped to 35
percent. He supported the bill and asked for member's
support.
3:53:40 PM
ALEX MCDONALD, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He shared that he owned the
vape shop Ice Fog Vapor. He declared that he heard much
misinformation in the prior testimony. He stated that
federal law required him to age verify customers for any
vape equipment. He countered that since the previous fall
FDA instituted registering and labeling requirements. He
emphasized that federal regulations were the norm that
considered vape products tobacco products. He noted that
compliance checks were carried out for the federal
government through a contracted vendor. He opined that "new
rules" were not necessary but better enforcement of the
existing rules were. He related that the American Cancer
Society recommended that long time smokers switch to a less
harmful product such as vapor products. He mentioned that
the FDA was engaged in studies related to the safety of e-
cigarettes. He concluded that everything in the bill was
covered under federal tobacco law.
Representative Grenn asked whether he knew all the
ingredients in the juice. Mr. McDonald answered in the
affirmative and maintained that propylene glycol acted as a
carrier and was found in asthma inhalers and oxygen tanks
and had been used for a long time. He added that vegetable
glycerin and food flavorings had also "been around for a
long time." Some vape juice did not contain nicotine. He
claimed that propylene glycol was added to hospital H Vac
systems to keep airborne infections down. Representative
Grenn asked why the label read that the product may contain
nicotine. Mr. McDonald responded that the labeling was an
FDA requirement. Representative Grenn asked why the
nicotine labeling would be necessary. Mr. McDonald answered
that there was a very low chance of cross contamination.
3:59:53 PM
Representative Wilson mentioned the age requirement of 19
for purchasing vape products and asked whether she was
correct. Mr. McDonald answered in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the bill was more
restrictive than federal law. Mr. McDonald thought the bill
seemed redundant to federal law, although federal law did
not require licensing. He thought SB 15 provided a
duplicate service since the federal law required full
enforcement authority and compliance checks. He surmised
that the legislation was more of a licensing law than one
designed to protect children. He purported that the
prevalent source for youth tobacco products was "social";
supplied by older friends or family. Representative
Kawasaki suggested that the state survey showed that many
vape shops were not in compliance with federal laws. He
asked for comment. Mr. McDonald felt that it did not make
sense to make new laws when the current laws were not
enforced.
Vice-Chair Gara had been told numerous times that until
federal laws were implemented the heating element in e-
cigarettes could contain asbestos and other toxic
materials. Mr. McDonald replied in the negative. He
explained that the heating elements used Kanthal A-1, a
resistance heating wire found in toaster ovens and hair
dryers and the wicking material was organic cotton. He did
not know where it was even possible to purchase asbestos.
4:03:38 PM
JENNIFER CHIKOYAK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She spoke from the
perspective of a parent and shared that she tried to "guide
her son into making good choices" and she valued the
assistance that tobacco and alcohol laws supplied. She
"appreciated the state stepping in and regulating" e-
cigarettes like other tobacco products. She favored the
state's penalties for tobacco sales to minors and wanted to
close the loophole for e-cigarettes.
4:04:59 PM
BETTY MACTAVISH, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of the bill. She shared that she was a retired
school teacher and was currently a substitute teacher. She
stated that e-cigarette use among youth was increasing and
characterized e-cigarettes as an "addictive tool" for the
tobacco industry rather than a "quit" tool. She observed
that youth who would not use conventional tobacco products
were attracted to vaping, and she characterized vaping as
"the new cool thing to do." She noted that toxic aerosols
and chemicals were "hidden" in flavored vape juiced. She
supported protecting the state's youth through passage of
the bill.
4:07:12 PM
MARGE STONEKING, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She relayed
that almost all e-cigarette contained nicotine and
chemicals and toxins that were unsafe to inhale. The FDA
delayed review of ingredients and any potential harmful
effects of e-cigarettes until 2022 leaving unregulated
products. She thought members were aware of the harmful
effects of nicotine on youth's brain development and
functioning and the increase in teen use. She reported that
the FDA had performed some product testing but there were
thousands of ingredients that varied from product to
product. The testing had discovered that "ultra-fine"
particles were inhaled deep into the lungs like diacetyl,
which was a flavorant linked to lung disease, volatile
organic compounds, and heavy metals. She argued that
whether the product contained nicotine or not there were
inherent risks in the use of the products. The bill would
hold vendors accountable. She felt that the bill would also
assist in changing the public perception that the products
were safe.
4:10:41 PM
PAMELA HOWARD, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 15.
She had been a school nurse for over 30 years and taught
students about the harmful effects of vaping. She reported
that in her school district principles saw a significant
increase in students use of vaping products. The bill
addressed students carrying devices. She believed that the
students carrying the devices showed intent to use the
devise and possession should be prohibited. She had not
seen vitamin e-cigarette products. She spoke of the
importance of educating students on the health risks of
using the products.
4:13:37 PM
KATIE STEFFENS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She related that e-cigarette use
contributed to harmful brain development and addiction in
youth. She spoke about the other aerosol ingredients that
were smaller in particulate composition and the associated
risks of inhaling those particulates. She reported that the
Philip Morris tobacco company was promoting a "smoke free
future" by supporting the use of vape products. She felt
that vaping would become a future trend making the bill
timelier. She urged for passage of the bill.
4:15:32 PM
JOSHUA SILAS, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition SB 15. He worked at Mapes Vapes vape shop. He
agreed that the bill was redundant and was a waste of time
and state government resources. He purported that the FDA
had addressed regulating vaping products and carried out
enforcement. Alaskan vape shops were compliant with the
federal regulations. His shop was committed to offering a
healthy alternative to smoking and helped 554 adults quit
smoking in the last 26 months. He wondered what the cost of
enforcement was to the state. He believed that "there was
no reason" to move forward with the bill.
4:18:16 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony on SB 15.
4:18:49 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked whether Mr. Darnell had heard the
testimony of Mr. McDonald regarding the redundancy of the
Alaska law and if he had any comments.
Mr. Darnell reported that he heard criticism that the state
did the requirement check study but did not carry out
enforcement. He noted that the state did not currently have
enforcement authority. He reported that the study was
performed as a baseline to determine what was necessary
when enforcement became law. He declared that he did not
know of any FDA compliance checks that had been conducted
in vape shops. He had only heard of them being carried out
in convenience stores. He informed committee members that
the fiscal note would be zero and the compliance checks
could be done without any additional costs to the state. He
had had numerous complaints from parents about where their
children had been able to obtain vape products. He knew of
vape shops that operated legally but others knowingly broke
the law. He relayed anecdotal evidence that when he went
into a tobacco only shop that was not smoke free and was
subjected to tobacco smoke he had some nasal discomfort and
his clothes smelled but when he went into a vape shop for
15 or 20 minutes and people were vaping it left him with a
burning sensation in his chest.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that amendments were due by
tomorrow at 5:00 pm.
SB 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that SB 155 would be moved to
tomorrow morning's meeting at 9:00 am.
ADJOURNMENT
4:23:58 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:24 p.m.