Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/07/1997 08:15 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"An Act relating to sale, possession, and purchase of
tobacco and tobacco products; amending Rules 603 and
611(d), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
GEORGE DOZIER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KOTT testified in
support of HB 159. He explained that HB 159 would "up the
ante" on violations relating to the sale of tobacco products
2
to minors or the use of tobacco products by minors. The
current penalty for selling tobacco to a minor is a fine of
up to $300 hundred dollars. Under HB 159, the penalty would
be a fine of not less than; $250 hundred dollars for a first
offense, $500 hundred dollars for a second offense and $1000
thousand dollars for a third offense.
Mr. Dozier provided members with Amendment 1 (copy on file).
He explained that Amendment 1 would modify the bill to an
earlier version. Under the amendment, violations of AS
11.76.100, sale of tobacco to a minor; AS 11.76.105, minor
possession; and AS 11.76.107, merchant requirements, would
each carry a penalty of $250 hundred dollars for a first
offense, $500 hundred dollars for a second offense and $1000
thousand dollars for a third offense. The amendment would
place a ceiling on potential fines. He noted that the
amendment also addresses concerns that the legislation would
overlap into criminal law, necessitating jury trials.
Mr. Dozier discussed other provisions of HB 159. He noted
that the legislation establishes requirements for vending
machine, mail order, or wholesale sales; outlaws the sale of
tobacco in units of less than one package; and requires
employers to notify employees regarding the provisions.
Employees are required to sign a statement that they have
received notification and that they understand the
provisions for the sell of tobacco. In addition, section 5
requires the court to separately account for fines collected
under AS 11.76.100, AS 11.76.105 and AS 11.76.107. These
fines can be used to support municipal law enforcement.
Representative Martin pointed out that children under 19
years of age could not purchase or use tobacco products. He
expressed concern that out-of-state residents would not be
aware of potential violations. Mr. Dozier thought that
merchants would be required to post the legal age. He
observed that the age limit is not being changed.
Representative Davis pointed out that employees will receive
notification of age requirements for the purchase of tobacco
products.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Dozier explained that provisions of AS 11.76.100(a) have
been placed in AS 11.76.107.
In response to comments by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Dozier clarified that federal law requires that clerks view
identification of anyone who appears to be under the age of
27.
Representative Davies expressed concern that the language,
"contained in a cigarette carton or box," on page 4, line 4
3
would imply that cartons could not be broken down for sale.
Discussion ensued regarding the use of "carton". Members
clarified that the intent is that single cigarettes not be
sold. Packs of cigarettes could be sold. Representative
Davies observed that promotional boxes contain 4 cigarettes.
Mr. Dozier reiterated that the concern is with the sale of
single cigarettes. Representative Davies maintained that
"carton" implies a container of boxes. Co-Chair Therriault
observed that further clarification is needed regarding the
drafter's use of "carton".
Representative Davies questioned if minor consumption would
be reduced by the legislation. He stressed that
availability needs to be reduced before consumption will be
effected. He maintained that the legislation without a
fiscal note is a "hollow promise".
Mr. Dozier asserted that section 5 will provide an
inducement for enforcement. He stressed that HB 159 is not
an appropriation bill.
Representative Davies asked if the sponsor intends to pursue
appropriations that would help to enhance enforcement. Mr.
Dozier could not comment. Representative Grussendorf noted
that the legislation would raise program receipts.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of HB 159. He
stated that the legislation is an alternative to taxes. He
acknowledged the need for enforcement.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that licenses can be revoked
under the legislation. Representative Davies pointed out
that unless the revocation of the license is connected to
the purpose of the license that the revocation provision may
be unconstitutional. He maintained that the legislation
will not be adequately enforced. He asserted that a tobacco
tax is the "most realistic way to really begin to solve the
problem." He stressed that law enforcement efforts will be
used to respond to homicides and domestic violence cases
before cases involving minor consumption of tobacco.
Representative Martin expressed concern that police can use
the legislation to raise revenues. He compared penalties
for the consumption of marijuana and the possession of
tobacco products.
Representative Mulder noted that there is a philosophical
difference between proponents of the tobacco tax and those
that prefer to effect change through rules and penalties
that limit access.
Representative Davies emphasized that access needs to be
4
restricted to 95 percent or more before it is effective. He
stated that studies show that 35 - 40 percent of stores
selling tobacco, in Fairbanks, still provide cigarettes to
minors. He stressed that consumption will not be affected
until 5 percent or less of the stores allow minors access to
tobacco. He maintained that increased taxes work to reduce
consumption.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to language on page 2, line 1,
"attempt to purchase". He observed that minors would not be
able to work with law enforcement officers under this
language. Mr. Dozier stated that the sponsor did not think
children should be used in law enforcement activities.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Dozier
explained that the fine is currently not less; than $250
hundred dollars for a first offense, $500 hundred dollars
for a second offense and $1000 thousand dollars for a third
offense. There is no upper limit on the fine. Amendment 1
would delete "not less than" as relating to the fine
schedules.
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to delete "or attempt to purchase"
on page 2, line 1. He stressed that the department should
not be precluded from doing compliance checks. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 159 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Foster OBJECTED
for purposes of discussion. He asked what would happen if a
person was unable to pay their fine.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
clarified that the fine would have to be satisfied. He
thought that it would be unconstitutional to send a person
to jail for failure to pay the fine. He noted that a
person's permanent fund dividend could be garnished.
Representative Foster questioned if the parents could be
held responsible. Representative Grussendorf observed that
village public safety officers are under-funded.
Representative Foster noted that village public safety
officers can be influenced by factors that could lead to
selective enforcement. Mr. Guaneli clarified that parents
would not be held responsible for their child's failure to
pay a fine unless the law specifically provides that parents
can be held liable. He noted that fines are referred to the
collection section in the Department of Law. Fines can be
5
collected through permanent fund dividends. People can
attempt to obtain a set aside or exemption.
Representative Martin expressed concern that the children's
actions will result in the loss of their permanent fund
dividends without an awareness of the consequences. Mr.
Guaneli observed that there would be some court process.
Representative Davies emphasized that families would feel
morally obligated to pay the fine.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Guaneli noted that the penalty for minor consumption is a
$300 dollar fine. He observed that there is legislation
pending that would increase the fine.
Representative Martin expressed concern that the legislation
could be used to raise revenues. He stated that "if you are
a good cop, stay around, if you need money for the village
patrol or municipal patrol, just watch that kid for a day or
two and you got him for another fine." He maintained that
it is not going to be easy to stop the child from smoking.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to move CSHB 159
(FIN).
IN FAVOR: Martin, Mulder, Davis, Kohring, Therriault
OPPOSED: Moses, Davies, Grussendorf, Foster
Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Kelly were absent for the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (5-4).
HB 159 failed to move from Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|