Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/03/2015 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 75-MUNI REGULATION OF MARIJUANA; ADV. BOARDS
8:10:41 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to the regulation of
marijuana by municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
8:11:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CSHB 75, Version 29-
LS0345\I, Nauman/Martin, 2/27/15, as the working document.
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
8:11:53 AM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Tilton, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that the committee has been provided with a
revised sectional analysis. Of the number of changes embodied
in Version I, he highlighted a change of particular policy
import located on page 2, lines 5-29, which establishes a
maximum household plant limit of 12 plants in a household with
two or more adults residing in the home. He then directed
attention to page 3, lines 7-15, which contains language
conforming to Title 4 provisions regarding the board and
notification requirements to municipalities when issuing
registrations for commercial marijuana establishments. The
language on page 3, line 24 through page 5, line 15, contains
language that is substantially similar to that in Title 4
regarding alcohol. The language, he specified, provides for a
notification and protest process for municipalities regarding
the issuance of registrations for commercial marijuana
establishments within a municipality's boundaries. The
aforementioned changes, he noted, were made largely in response
to the requests of various municipalities. He then pointed out
that the previously adopted amendments to insert the term
"criminal" with regard to penalties can be found on page 5, line
28, and the language change from "shall" to "may" is located on
page 7, line 16.
8:14:09 AM
CHAIR TILTON withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, Version I was adopted.
8:14:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the language in Version I
specifying a maximum household limit of 12 plants would meet the
[initiative] requirements allowing each individual to have 6
plants.
8:15:40 AM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, offered that a household limit of 12 plants in a
household with two or more adults over the age of 21 runs into
an equal protection challenge. Ms. Martin said that it's
unclear how the court would decide such a situation. However,
she pointed out that in Ravin V. State [537 P.2d 494 (Alaska
1975)], the court held that a fairly high privacy interest was
implicated.
8:16:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the establishment of a
[household limit] is reasonable from the perspective that a
certain amount of plants in a house could be presumed to be at
the level of commercial use.
MS. MARTIN confirmed that is one issue the court will consider.
In Ravin and Noy v. State [83 P.3rd 538 (Alaska App 2003)] the
court has said that at some point there is an amount of
possession that is indicative of sale. In Noy the court
established that four ounces of personal possession is
acceptable and not indicative of sale, but the court didn't go
beyond that. Therefore, it's unclear, she opined, as to how the
court will weigh the various interests.
8:19:20 AM
RACHELLE YEUNG, Legislative Analyst Marijuana Policy Project,
related that the Marijuana Policy Project is neutral on HB 75
and noted appreciation of the committee's desire to respect the
will of the voters as well as the diligence to check in with the
committee on the drafting of the legislation. However, she said
MPP has some concerns and recommends a few remaining revisions.
With regard to the 12 plant household limit, she pointed out
that the initiative allows each individual age 21 or older to
possess six plants with no household cap. Although MPP
understands the need for municipalities to clarify their ability
to enforce the possession limit in households in which two or
more adults may reside. Given that Colorado's ballot initiative
language was very similar to the personal protection language in
Alaska's initiative, MPP has used Colorado's experience as
guidance. In Colorado, several local governments have imposed
household limits similar to those proposed in HB 75 without any
legal challenge thus far. Since a challenge could be brought
forward in the future, she said MPP couldn't say definitively
whether [a household limit] would be consistent with Alaska's
ballot initiative. However, she highlighted that in Colorado
there is no statewide household limit and deference is given to
municipalities in terms of what is appropriate for their
communities. Ms. Yeung pointed out that it's quite common for
families to include three or more adults residing in the same
location, such that there could be two parents and an adult
child. Therefore, if there is going to be a household limit,
MPP strongly encourages, at a minimum, an 18 plant household
limit rather than 12 plant household limit. Regarding the
addition in Section 9 of HB 75 providing municipalities the
ability to impose criminal penalties for a violation of an
ordinance, it wasn't the intent of the drafters of the law from
the initiative to allow municipalities to impose criminal
penalties. The desire, rather, was to limit any violation of
regulations governing time, place, and manner of a marijuana
establishment to a civil fine. However, she related her
understanding that there may be an opinion coming from
Legislative Legal Services explaining that existing statute
providing municipalities with the authority to impose criminal
penalties may override this particular provision of the
initiative. Ms. Yeung said MPP would like to review the
aforementioned opinion before stating a formal position on that
matter. She then directed attention to the new provision under
Section 7 relating to the municipal protest and review process.
The MPP, she related, does concur that it would be more
efficient and convenient for marijuana registration/licensure
processes to mirror existing alcohol licensing processes. Ms.
Yeung clarified that MPP does not oppose the addition of the new
provision so long as it complies with the application period
specified in Ballot Measure 2, does not raise costs, or
otherwise conflict with Ballot Measure 2. As specified in AS
17.38.100(b) of Ballot Measure 2, the state regulatory board
must accept or reject an annual registration within 90 days of
receiving an application. Therefore, MPP has no objection to
the additional provision so long as the alcohol licensing
protest and review process doesn't exceed the timeline beyond
the 90 days. She then turned attention to the addition of
several new sections relating to the exercise of the local
option to prohibit marijuana establishments for established
villages. Although the new sections are a fairly typical
process as laid out for other voter initiatives with regard to
established villages, she pointed out that under Ballot Measure
2 municipalities are allowed to prohibit certain types of
marijuana establishments while allowing others. The initiative
lays out four different types of marijuana establishments,
including marijuana cultivation facilities, product
manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores.
Ms. Yeung expressed the need [for the language] to be clear that
established villages have the option to opt out of any one, all
four, or none of the aforementioned types of marijuana
establishments.
8:26:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ inquired as to the reasoning behind MPP
supporting a household limit of 18 plants versus 12 plants
versus 24 plants.
MS. YEUNG reiterated that households with three adults are
fairly common, particularly when one considers a household with
two adult parents and an adult child or the child of a parent
over the age of 21 all residing in the same household. The MPP
feels that an 18 plant cap would be more reasonable, she stated.
8:27:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, referring to an article entitled "How
Much Cannabis Can I Yield Per Plant?" from the blog "I Love
Growing Marijuana," related her understanding that one of the
keys to growing marijuana is the strength of the light. She
then related her understanding that over the course of a year
three flowering plants and three immature plants could produce
about 18 ounces of marijuana, which is about 1,000 joints with a
street value of about $5,000. In a situation with the same
number of plants under larger grow lights, over the course of a
year those plants could produce about 216 ounces, which is over
12,000 joints with a street value of $60,000. However, in a
situation in which there are 12 plants of which six are
flowering [and six are immature], [over the course of a year]
the plants can yield approximately 432 ounces or 16 joints per
day. Representative Reinbold expressed concern with how much 12
plants can yield as it's an opportunity for individuals to
produce more than for personal use. Therefore, she questioned
at what point the number of plants per household would move from
an amount for personal use to an amount for commercial use.
8:29:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed concern with the numbers
presented by Representative Reinbold, particularly in
conjunction with MPP's proposal for a household limit of 18
plants. She then directed attention to information in the
committee packet specifying that one ounce of marijuana is equal
to approximately 5.6 gallons of beer. She then pointed out that
state law specifies that an individual is only allowed to brew
100 gallons per year per person with a maximum of 200 gallons
per year per household. Therefore, if the goal is to regulate
marijuana like alcohol, calculations reveal that one person at
the low end of production [with six plants] could grow 1.5
pounds of marijuana in one year, which at the low end is
equivalent to 101 gallons of beer up to 1,215 gallons of beer.
Calculations for 12 plants result in marijuana amounts
equivalent to 202 gallons of beer up to 2,040 gallons of beer.
The aforementioned calculations, she said, result in the low end
of marijuana production for 12 plants reaching the equivalent of
the household limit for beer. Representative Hughes clarified
that a household limit of 12 plants results in a low end amount
of marijuana production that is slightly more than the allowance
for [home brew] beer. Therefore, Representative Hughes opined
that the household limit shouldn't exceed 12 plants,
particularly in terms of the precedent set by the [home brew] of
alcohol standard.
8:32:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked in what way is marijuana equivalent
to alcohol under Representative Hughes' comparison.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES deferred to Mr. Hilyard.
MR. HILYARD referred to the document in the committee packet
entitled "100 questions about legal marijuana: Your go-to source
for Colorado info." The document relates the following:
Researchers have calculated that the average joint has
slightly less than a half gram of marijuana. (Yes,
this is actually something that people with Ph.D.s
did.) An ounce is slightly more than 28 grams. So
one ounce will get you close to 60 joints. In alcohol
terms, it's a keg of pot.
MR. HILYARD noted that he couldn't speak about the correlation
in terms of toxicity. However, in trying to regulate marijuana
like alcohol, he sought some type of conversion albeit largely
for illustrative purposes. He pointed out that since the
federal government already restricts the amount of alcohol
brewed at home and not for commercial purposes, he used that
restriction to calculate what that amount of marijuana would
look like. He acknowledged that these aren't hard science
numbers, but noted it's the best available information that
could be provided to the committee at the time. He then pointed
out that the committee packet contains a document entitled "Keg
Sizes and Gallons per Size."
8:35:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified that she was trying to point
out that the maximum yield of the 12 plants in a household of
four would yield 16 joints per day per person.
8:36:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES acknowledged that a municipality can
choose to be stricter than the state law. Therefore, if the
state law specifies a household limit of 12 plants, she asked
whether a municipality would be able to implement a lower
household limit of plants.
MS. MARTIN answered that generally a municipality does have that
power. However, since the initiative has slightly ambiguous
language regarding the powers of municipalities, she said she
didn't specifically know if that would be true in this case.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES remarked that it would be good to hear
from municipal attorneys on that point.
CHAIR TILTON noted that the legislation has a referral to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee, where the aforementioned
could be addressed.
8:38:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that the municipal attorney in
Kenai requested a maximum number of plants per household so that
enforcement would be clearer for the residents and law
enforcement of Alaska. The aforementioned arose due to the
ambiguity surrounding the definition of the amount of plants per
person.
8:40:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK opined that alcohol and drugs produce two
different effects. For example, he said he has never seen a
stoned person abuse his/her family or drink away the money for
food. When one is high on marijuana, one only wants to eat.
Representative Nageak further opined that alcohol and the
effects of alcohol to people are much worse than marijuana and
the effect of marijuana to people. He said alcohol and
marijuana can't be discussed in the same manner because the two
are completely different.
8:41:58 AM
CHAIR TILTON noted that the correlation between marijuana and
alcohol was made because the initiative specifies regulating
marijuana like alcohol. With regard to the discussion about
limiting the number of plants per household, Chair Tilton
clarified that the discussion wasn't referring to the toxicity
in the plants but rather about protecting the revenue that would
come to the state.
8:42:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the language on page
5, line 16, which provides the option to prohibit marijuana
cultivation facilities, manufacturing facilities, testing
facilities, retail facilities, or marijuana clubs. The
legislation, he pointed out, establishes an additional license
or registration type that was not included in the initiative.
MS. YEUNG responded with her belief that the MPP or the campaign
has a formal position regarding marijuana clubs. Although she
said she didn't believe it would be inconsistent with Ballot
Measure 2, she offered to provide the committee with more
detailed information later.
8:45:01 AM
CHAIR TILTON asked whether marijuana today is considerably more
potent than in the past.
MS. YEUNG said she doesn't have hard facts on that, although she
acknowledged that it's a common claim by some, including the
media. However, she informed the committee that much of the
marijuana tested in the past and used for the potency of
marijuana was much weaker than what may have been consumed by
regular marijuana users. Furthermore, much of the potency
testing in the past decade was based on federally produced
marijuana, which is known to have very, very low potency to the
point of being ineffective treating medical illness in a lot of
cases. Therefore, it may not be an accurate comparison.
Potency within marijuana does vary, but in the regulated market
consumers will be able to see the potency through the testing.
CHAIR TILTON recalled reading that today's marijuana is six
times more potent than that of the 1970s.
MS. YEUNG said she has heard that claim, but said she couldn't
speak to its accuracy.
8:47:09 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, directed
attention to the language on page 2 referring to the household
limit of 12 marijuana plants. He questioned the appropriateness
of having that much marijuana available, particularly when under
modern growing techniques [for growing inside] one plant has
been found to yield up to a pound. Therefore, he urged the
committee to consider a six plant per household limit. He then
pointed out that the statute from the initiative does not
specify that marijuana has to be treated like alcohol, and thus
it can be treated differently. For the purposes of marijuana,
which remains a classified drug under federal law, he opined
that the state should proceed in a conservative manner, which he
indicated his constituency supports as well. Mayor Hopkins then
characterized the components in Section 8 on page 5, lines 17-
22, as good components. Allowing the local government to
determine how many marijuana clubs are allowed in an area is
very important, he opined. In fact, the Fairbanks North Star
Borough administration is going before the planning commission
to discuss the zoning aspect because the borough has sensitive
receptors and federal sensitive receptors. He noted his
appreciation of the addition of the term "criminal" on page 5,
line 28, as the borough and the cities don't want to be excluded
from that authority. Although the two existing cities have
police forces and don't intend to apply those criminal aspects,
the ability to have the authority is important. Mayor Hopkins
related that the assistant borough attorney for Fairbanks holds
the understanding that the borough can have a more restrictive
household limit than that of the state.
8:54:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if there is concern with regard to
the excess marijuana that would be produced with a 12 plant
limit and whether that excess would create a potential new black
market.
MAYOR HOPKINS confirmed that he has such concerns. He related
that he has information stating that many more than 16 joints
can be produced per plant. He acknowledged that bartering will
occur but opined that if the commercial aspect of marijuana
production can reach the right price, it could squeeze out the
black market. Therefore, he reiterated the appropriateness of a
[household limit] of six plants.
8:57:19 AM
CHAIR TILTON clarified that Representative Reinbold's conversion
calculations were based on 12 plants.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD further clarified that her conversion
calculations found that 12 marijuana plants in a household with
four people would produce 16 joints per day per person.
8:57:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the last paragraph of a
February 26, 2015, memorandum from Legislative Legal Services,
which read:
Section 41.61.030(h) provides that a marijuana
1
cultivation facility that fails to pay taxes to the
state may have its registration to operate "revoked in
accordance with procedures established under [sec.]
1738.090(a)(l)." This subsection does not limit the
board's authority, or a local government's authority,
to adopt regulations that provide for marijuana
establishments' registrations to be revoked for other
causes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the language of the
initiative that established the ability to revoke a cultivation
facility due to failure to pay taxes was viewed as limiting.
From that language there was the belief that the only reason a
license or registration could be revoked was for failure to pay
taxes. However, Legislative Legal Services interprets the
language as not limiting the ability to revoke for other
reasons.
8:59:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if there have been any discussions
with local fire departments regarding marijuana clubs in the
case of a fire. She opined that it would seem necessary for
employees not to use marijuana at the marijuana club.
MAYOR HOPKINS responded that he wasn't aware of specific
discussions on that issue. However, there have been discussions
with regard to fire departments' concerns with the extraction
methods. Mayor Hopkins likened [a fire in a marijuana club] to
a fire in a bar with a lot of less than fully aware individuals
with regard to fire exits.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES opined that it's a discussion that needs
to occur.
9:02:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, labeled 29-LS0345\P.5, Martin, 2/27/15, as follows:
Page 9, line 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(17) "public place" means a place to which
the public or a substantial group of persons has
access and includes highways, transportation
facilities, schools, places of amusement or business,
parks, playgrounds, prisons, and hallways, lobbies,
and other portions of apartment houses and hotels not
constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual
residence; "public place" does not include a marijuana
club."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that Conceptual Amendment 1
was drafted to Version P, and for Version I should be inserted
on page 11, line 4.
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
9:03:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that under Conceptual Amendment
1 the definition of "public place" is the same, except for the
addition of the language specifying that a "public place" does
not include a marijuana club.
9:04:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed interest in adding the
language "but not limited to" following the term "includes" in
Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the language Representative
Reinbold is amending is the current legal definition of "public
place." He then related his understanding that when Legislative
Legal Services uses the term "includes" it interprets it as
"includes but not limited to."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed concern that the definition of
"public place" is a small list of public places. For instance,
churches aren't included in the list of a public place.
MS. MARTIN explained that a provision in Alaska statute
specifies that when the term "including" is used it means "but
not limited to." Generally, the language "including but not
limited to" is not used because it's already implied through the
general statute that applies.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD interjected that if that's the case,
then she definitely wanted to include the language "but not
limited to" as it would add a tiny bit of clarity.
9:06:39 AM
The committee took an at ease from 9:06 a.m. to 9:09 a.m.
9:09:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved that the committee adopt an
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1, such that in Conceptual
Amendment 1 following the term "includes" the language "but not
limited to" would be inserted. There being no objection, the
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:10:39 AM
[CHAIR TILTON treated her objection to Conceptual Amendment 1 as
withdrawn.]
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1, as
amended, was adopted.
9:10:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2, labeled 29-LS0345\P.6, Martin, 3/2/15, with changes to insert
in Version I, as follows:
Page 11, line 2, following "by":
Insert "paying"
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
9:12:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the notion is to have
enough of a definition for a marijuana club such that it's not
confused with a public place. Therefore, the club membership
[offers more definition] rather than a weakening of the term
"public place."
9:13:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES surmised that the committee is envisioning
a marijuana club as an established physical location that is a
club to which members would pay a membership. However, she
questioned whether there is the potential for a marijuana club
to be a paying group that could move around to different
locations. She then noticed that the language refers to
"registered premises," and asked if that addresses the concern.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the language "on the
registered premises and whose members are 21 years of age or
older" is included in order to avoid situations to which
Representative Hughes is referring.
9:14:50 AM
The committee took an at ease from 9:14 a.m. to 9:17 a.m.
9:17:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON further clarified that Amendment 2 ensures
that a marijuana club has to have a license or registered
premises so that there is official recognition that this is a
location for which its members have to be 21 years or older and
are paying members of the club. Amendment 2 addresses the
request for folks to legally consume marijuana in a location
other than their own home while maintaining some control over it
as previously explained. He noted, however, that since a
marijuana club is a separate designation, a local government may
allow or disallow such an establishment even if other uses of
marijuana are allowed.
9:18:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether language stating those under
21 aren't permitted to be on the premises should be included as
it's not that clear in the definition. She then inquired how
including the term "paying" provides a better sideboard in a
scenario in which a wealthy individual opens a marijuana club
and covers the cost of membership for people. Furthermore, she
questioned whether under the proposed language children wouldn't
be allowed on the premises [of a marijuana club].
Representative Hughes clarified that the language doesn't
specify that those under the age of 21 couldn't be in a
marijuana club.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON deferred to Ms. Martin.
CHAIR TILTON noted that Ms. Martin wasn't available for comment
at this time.
9:21:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if HB 75 is the only legislation
that has a definition for a marijuana club.
MR. HILYARD answered that to his knowledge at this time, HB 75
is the only bill that refers specifically to marijuana clubs.
The language referring to marijuana clubs was included at the
request of a number of municipalities, including the City and
Borough of Juneau, so that the municipalities could determine
whether to allow or disallow such a facility at the municipal
level. The municipalities needed the legislature to act in
order for the municipalities to be able to make the choice.
9:22:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES requested comment from Legislative Legal
Services as to whether the proposed language would cover
prohibiting children from being on the premises or whether it
would need to be added, or whether the control board could do
that by regulation.
9:22:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 11, line 3, following "older":
Insert "and does not children under age of 21 on
premises while marijuana is being consumed"
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
9:23:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD suggested that the language "while
marijuana is being consumed" in Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2 could be deleted. She opined that the intention of
the initiative was not to allow children in a marijuana club.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that it's a
conceptual amendment. He pointed out that there could be
situations in which a facility [registered/licensed] as a
marijuana club could be used at other times for other
activities. He expressed his intent [with the amendment] was to
ensure that children wouldn't be around when marijuana is
consumed. He indicated that he wasn't sure about [inserting
language] that would [disallow] the use of a licensed
establishment for other purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD then suggested that the language should
include "under 21 during hours of operation".
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES pointed out that even when a child is not
in a marijuana club when marijuana is being consumed or during
its hours of operation, children could see the paraphernalia.
Therefore, she expressed the need for a requirement that outside
of the hours of operation when a child is present, the
paraphernalia has to be put away out of view.
9:26:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2.
CHAIR TILTON announced that Amendment 2 is now before the
committee. She noted that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee could address this aspect.
9:27:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested that language could be inserted
relating that children wouldn't be allowed on the premises
during hours of operation if the facility is used for other
activities when marijuana is not being consumed, that the
products and paraphernalia related to marijuana be out of public
view.
9:28:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired as to how alcohol laws deal
with this matter. Drawing from her time on the Anchorage
Assembly, she recalled a situation in which there was a question
as to whether paid professional musicians over the age of 18 but
under age 21 could perform in bar where liquor was being
consumed. She opined that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee should address this issue. She then expressed concern
with cleaning crews of such facilities that might have an
employee under the age of 21. Although she surmised that at
some point how a club operates will have to be addressed, she
wasn't sure it was under the purview of this committee.
9:29:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD announced her support for Representative
Hughes' suggested language as it's the committee's job to
protect children and ensure public safety.
9:29:51 AM
The committee took an at ease from 9:29 a.m. to 9:32 a.m.
9:32:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES moved Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment
2, as follows:
Page 11, line 3, following "older":
Insert "children would not be permitted on the
premises during hours of operation and if the facility
is used outside that activity for other purposes that
the marijuana related products and paraphernalia be
put out of public view for under age 21"
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed the importance of adding this
language to protect children, although she acknowledged that the
language may need more work.
9:33:46 AM
CHAIR TILTON withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:34:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES inquired as to the sidebars of the term
"paying" being inserted by Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the idea behind Conceptual
Amendment 2, as amended, is that a paying membership is a more
defined actual club. He noted that there are lots of examples
of social clubs with paying memberships and the desire with the
amendment was to define it more narrowly and allow local
jurisdictions to define it within their own licensing
requirements. The paying membership assumes that the membership
is paid by the member, and thus he said he didn't believe an
open area for which one individual paid [for all members] would
be considered a paid membership.
9:36:20 AM
CHAIR TILTON [withdrew her objection] and announced that
Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
9:36:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
3, I.1, which read:
Page 2, line 29, following "section":
Insert ";
(C) growing marijuana plants for another
person in a place other than that other person's
residence"
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
9:37:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 3 means that an
individual couldn't grow plants in his/her house for others in
the community. An individual could assist another person so
long as the plants are located in the residence of the person
being assisted.
9:38:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES inquired as to whether the definition of
"residence" includes the entire property of the individual being
assisted or does it have to be in the dwelling.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON presumed that the definition of
"residence" would include the property of the house. However,
he reminded the committee that there are restrictions about
growing marijuana plants in public view or in view from a public
place. In some circumstances, [the growing would be restricted]
to being done indoors. Amendment 3, he stated, strictly
prohibits an individual from growing marijuana plants for
someone else other than at the other person's residence.
9:39:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES inquired as to whether [the initiative
includes] any prohibitions against marijuana being grown outside
in a yard or in a greenhouse.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he could only recall that an
individual can't grow marijuana beside a park, even if the
individual owns the backyard. He opined that the aforementioned
is included in other legislation moving through the legislature.
The purpose of Amendment 3, he specified, is to avoid large grow
operations for multiple people from other places.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she appreciated and agreed with the
intent, but questioned whether it's allowable for someone who is
growing marijuana for medical purposes to do so in a green
house.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the language on
page 11, line 5, which says "(18) "residence" means a single
dwelling unit." She then recalled that marijuana grown in a
backyard can't be visible, even from the air. She agreed with
Representative Seaton that whether marijuana can be grown in a
backyard is addressed [in other proposed legislation].
9:42:23 AM
CHAIR TILTON withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
9:43:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 75, Version 29-
LS0345\I, Nauman/Martin, 2/27/15, as amended, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 75(CRA) was reported from
the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.