Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB7 | |
| HB3 | |
| HB119 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act classifying certain synthetic cannabinoids as
schedule IIA controlled substances; and providing for
an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, SPONSOR, discussed CSHB 7
(JUD). She delineated that synthetic cannabinoids were
materials that contained hallucinogenic chemicals that were
sprayed on leafy plant material. The materials were sold on
the internet and in stores under a variety of names
including K2 and Spice. To increase popularity and
distinguish the product from drugs such as LSD, the
products were marketed as a synthetic marijuana or incense.
She had first heard about Spice or K2 from the parent of a
boy who had experienced a serious adverse reaction to the
drug. She explained that within moments of inhalation the
young man experienced severe vomiting, loss of reality, the
inability to walk and talk, and violent outbursts. She read
an excerpt from a letter written by the young man:
"I only had a small amount and in less than two
minutes I was losing my perception of what was real in
every way. I lost control of my legs and I couldn't
walk. I couldn't talk. I can remember thinking to
myself that I wasn't going to come out of this
craziness and this might be how I end up dying. I
remember telling my brother to call 911 and going to
the hospital."
Representative Munoz relayed that many similar stories had
surfaced since her office began working on the bill and
that many states had enacted bans on the material.
Synthetic cannabinoids were relatively new to the United
States and were manufactured in China and Europe. Germany,
Sweden, Russia and England had all banned the substance.
Given the accessibility of the substance, its low cost, and
its difficulty to drug test, popularity was increasing in
the U.S., particularly among the youth population. She
explained that the herbal and chemical compounds commonly
produced a reaction similar to marijuana. The original
legislation would have classified the substances as
schedule IIA, which included compounds that contained
hallucinogenic substances. With the advice of the
Department of Law (DOL), the bill was amended to classify
certain synthetic cannabinoids as schedule IIIA controlled
substances. She asked a member of her staff to describe the
legislation in detail.
1:40:51 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ,
explained that they had worked with DOL and Legislative
Legal to classify the product as a schedule IIIA controlled
substance. Other synthetic THCs [tetrahydrocannabinols]
fell under the IIIA category. The bill listed the different
chemical compounds of the synthetic THC contained in the
product that were determined by the DEA [Drug Enforcement
Agency] and research conducted in other states. The
Municipality of Anchorage supported the legislation and
already had a ban on the substance. Sergeant Robert
Thompson of the Fairbanks Police Department had provided a
written statement expressing the department's support of
the bill (copy on file). The department had experienced a
problem with a driver who had been under the influence of
K2 and had experienced seizures. The department had been
unable to charge the driver with an offence as the product
was not classified as a controlled substance. The
legislation was also supported by many constituents, the
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the Mat-Su
Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition, the Alaska Peace
Officers Association, the Alaska Association of Chiefs of
Police, and the Women Police of Alaska.
Co-Chair Stoltze informed the committee that technical
questions about the classification of the substance could
be directed to the Department of Public Safety Scientific
Crime Detection Lab (SCDL).
Representative Gara wondered if the effects of K2 or Spice
resembled those of marijuana or hashish and whether the
penalty should be similar to one of those substances.
ORIN DYM, FORENSIC LABORATORY MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY SCIENTIFIC CRIME DETECTION LAB (via teleconference),
was not a toxicologist and could not speak to the effects
of the substances. He explained that synthetic compounds
were not natural products and had to be synthesized and
that K2 or Spice was definitely a synthetic or "designer"
drug. Marijuana was a plant material that naturally
excreted THCs. He could not speak to how the product should
be specifically classified.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, ASSISTANT REVISOR OF STATUTES, LEGISLATIVE
LEGAL SERVICES, informed the committee that the Judiciary
Committee had placed the synthetic THCs in with the other
classified THCs. Currently schedule IIIA drugs included
natural THC, the active ingredient in marijuana; and three
synthetic THCs. The committee elected to place the drugs
under the same category given their similarities and same
classification.
Representative Gara asked about the penalty for a first
conviction. Mr. Luckhaupt replied that the penalty for
distribution or manufacturing was a felony. There was no
major difference between schedules I, II, and III related
to penalties for the manufacturing or delivery of a
substance. Possession could be either a felony or a
misdemeanor, depending upon the amount of the substance. He
explained that for schedule III substances the possession
of less than three grams was a misdemeanor and above three
grams was a felony. The possession of a schedule II drug
was a felony in any amount.
1:47:12 PM
Representative Gara asked how three grams compared to the
size of a marijuana joint. Mr. Dym responded that a typical
marijuana cigarette weighed approximately 0.3 grams or one-
third of a gram and that three grams equaled approximately
nine to ten hand-rolled cigarettes.
Representative Guttenberg wondered how the substance was
manufactured. He asked whether an organic product or
chemicals for a lab were required to make the substance.
Mr. Dym responded that the process involved an exotic
chemistry that required quite a bit of knowledge, skill,
and equipment. The process was not a typical backyard
"clandestine" operation.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was a
specific source that provided most of the product to
Alaska. Mr. Dym replied that he did not have specific
detail and that previous testimony had traced the
production to a couple of overseas companies.
Representative Neuman asked what the prison sentence would
be for the possession of 3 grams. Mr. Luckhaupt responded
that the penalty for a class A misdemeanor was up to one
year in jail and that the maximum sentence for a class C
felony was up to 5 years in prison. There was no
presumptive term for a class C felony and typically a
person who was convicted would receive a prison sentence of
less than one year.
Representative Neuman asked about the typical sentence for
three grams of marijuana.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that DOL and the Alaska Court System
could probably provide more precise information. He had
hoped to move the bill out of committee but there had been
several fiscal note questions raised by Legislative
Finance.
Representative Wilson asked how a police officer would be
able to test whether a driver was under the influence of K2
or Spice.
Ms. Kloster replied that police departments would determine
how tests should be conducted. She explained that the drug
impacted people much differently than alcohol did. Current
drug testing methods were not able to pick up K2 or Spice
and tests for the drug were more invasive than tests for
alcohol.
Representative Wilson wondered whether a blood test would
be a reliable method to determine that a person was under
the influence of the drug. Mr. Luckhaupt responded that the
prosecution of a person who had been under the influence of
a controlled substance was always problematic. Prosecutors
attempted to prove a person's altered state based other
factors such as, possession of drugs, a person's actions,
and a blood test taken at the time of the offence. He
relayed that currently a test was not available that would
reveal the drug. The reason the person in Fairbanks
admitted that he had taken the drug was because it had not
been illegal.
1:54:35 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether prosecution would be
based on the possession of the substance rather than on its
ingestion. Mr. Luckhaupt replied that proof that a person
was driving under the influence (DUI) would still be
required. He communicated that it was difficult but not
impossible to convict a person for being under the
influence of a controlled substance.
Representative Gara believed that in previous years the
legislature had classified too many things as felonies. He
stated that a misdemeanor was a serious crime and was the
appropriate crime level in some cases. He was concerned
about the practice of adding non-violent crimes to the
felony list. He wondered whether there was a way to make
the distribution of a significant amount of the drug a
felony and to make the possession of a small amount a
misdemeanor.
Mr. Luckhaupt responded that the Judiciary Committee tried
to reduce the penalty so that the possession of a small
amount would result in a misdemeanor. The distribution and
sale of a schedule III substance was always a felony. The
sale of a schedule IVA substance would result in a
misdemeanor. He stated that dropping the level to a
schedule IVA would be problematic given that normal THC and
the existing three synthetic THCs were classified as
schedule III substances.
Representative Gara asked whether it was possible for
distribution to remain a felony and for the possession of
more than three grams to be classified as a misdemeanor.
Mr. Luckhaupt answered in the affirmative. He explained
that a fourth or fifth degree of misconduct involving a
controlled substance could be created and that a specific
level could be specified for the synthetic THCs.
Representative Gara discussed that felony charges would be
fought much harder than misdemeanor charges and that it was
important to factor in the fairness and the costs of jail
time, and prosecution.
Co-Chair Stoltze opened public testimony.
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 7 (JUD) 27-
LS0044\T.
KATE BURKHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY BOARD OF
ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, discussed that the board was created by statute
to advise the executive and legislative branches on issues
related to substance abuse. The board was located under the
Department of Health and Social Services but did not speak
for the department. She voiced the board's support of the
legislation. She delineated that the chemicals used in K2
were created as part of a federally funded research project
that studied the effects of THC on the human brain. The
product was made in a highly sophisticated lab and was
never intended for human consumption. The reported effects
of the product were not similar to naturally occurring
substances such as marijuana. She referred to testimony
provided by a Juneau doctor that discussed the symptoms of
a person who had been admitted to the intensive care unit.
The American Association of Poison Control Centers had
received over 3,000 calls regarding poisoning incidents in
the prior year and 400 calls in January 2011. The substance
was implicated in criminal activity, DUIs, violent crime,
hallucinations, one known death in Alaska, and at least one
suicide. The product had potential social costs not only in
the loss of life and injury, but in emergency room and
medical costs as well. The board felt strongly that the
substance should be regulated at a higher level than
marijuana given the severity of the effects of the
substance.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the substance qualified
under the medical marijuana statute that had been created
by initiative.
Ms. Burkhart replied that it did not. She emphasized that
K2 was a manmade product that was applied to a natural
plant base.
2:02:38 PM
Representative Edgmon asked whether there had been any
accounts of the substance reaching rural Alaska and whether
reports of the impact of the drug had been statewide. Ms.
Burkhart replied that the board had only heard reports from
urban areas of the state. The board was concerned about
extensive reports of abuse in the military. She relayed
that the U.S. Army had banned the substance and had court
marshaled over one dozen service members in Alaska. The
Navy had also experienced the same problem. The board was
concerned that the drug might infiltrate into rural areas
given the potential use of the drug among the state's
National Guardsmen.
Representative Neuman asked whether there were other common
drugs or substances with a similar chemical structure that
could be confused with K2. Ms. Burkhart responded that the
chemicals were very specific formulas. The bill would
regulate five very specific chemical compositions. Due to
the specificity of the bill, products that may be similar
were not included. The board appreciated that the bill was
tracking with the temporary federal regulation enacted by
the Drug Enforcement Agency and was following regulation
planned by the federal government and 13 other states. She
believed that a chemist could manufacture a substance that
was equally exciting and harmful with a different chemical
composition that would not be controlled by the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Vice-Chair Fairclough communicated that she had a young
constituent who had experienced an adverse reaction to the
drug that had resulted in the girl's inability to move and
subsequently in an emergency room visit. She was in support
of the bill and wanted to make certain that it was done
correctly. She believed that there were only two national
labs that were able to test for the drug. One lab did urine
analysis and the other tested blood. She wondered about
economic opportunity and whether something could be
marketed through SCDL for other laboratories throughout the
state that would help fund the position and provide a
safety net for Alaskans that were having a violent reaction
to the drug. She referenced the fiscal note and wondered
whether the state could provide an engine to help other
states quantify people taking the drug. She opined that the
issue at hand was one of safety and hoped that anyone who
was having an adverse reaction to the drug would recognize
what was happening immediately. She hoped that officers
would ask the appropriate questions to identify that a
person's reaction was different than anticipated and that
medical treatment would be sought immediately.
Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed the corrected Department of
Corrections (DOC) fiscal note #2 that had been changed from
zero to almost $200,000 per person. She explained that the
range listed on the fiscal note was not very helpful to the
committee. She wondered whether there was someone present
from the department that could speak to the indeterminate
note.
2:08:21 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked Representative Munoz to contact
DOC regarding the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the co-chair staff would
contact the department.
Representative Munoz agreed that the increased fiscal note
#2 was unclear and that they would communicate with DOC.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that David Teal, Legislative
Finance, and James Armstrong, staff to Representative
Stoltze would also participate in a discussion to determine
the accuracy of the fiscal note.
Representative Costello pointed out that some of the
documentation referred to the substance as a schedule IIA
and in other areas as a schedule IIIA. She wanted to make
certain it was shown consistently as schedule IIIA.
Representative Munoz clarified that the bill had been
amended in the Judiciary Committee to change the
classification of the substance from IIA to IIIA.
Ms. Kloster relayed that the fiscal notes would all be
updated to reference the schedule IIIA classification.
Representative Costello appreciated that the legislation
had been introduced. She emphasized that the drug had hit
the streets of Anchorage with a tenacity that needed to be
addressed.
Representative Munoz expressed that testimony from her
community had moved and motivated her to help address the
problem.
Vice-Chair Fairclough moved on to fiscal note #3. The note
had a $126,800 first year impact that was followed by
$106,600. She wondered whether the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) could provide clarity on the appropriate
testing mechanism for the product, the cost, and the
expected turnaround time. Mr. Dym responded that there were
two tests available. The first was a toxicology test that
involved the analysis of blood or urine. The second test
related to the analysis of solid material possession cases.
The SCDL currently had no toxicology program and testing
was outsourced to the State of Washington. A grant from the
Alaska Highway Safety Office paid for the sample testing.
He explained that Washington subcontracted the work in the
case of synthetic cannabinoids because there were only a
few places that were able to test for the drug. The fiscal
note related to possession cases and funded the necessary
workforce to handle the increased number of submissions and
to ensure the laboratory maintained its rapid turnaround
time.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked for clarification on the
meaning of rapid turnaround time. Mr. Dym replied that most
drug cases moved to court from the time of incident in less
than 60 days and more frequently in 45 days. The lab was
turning 68 percent of the drug cases in less than 31 days
and it worked to not exceed the 45-day to 50-day window.
Vice-Chair Fairclough appreciated the excellent turnaround
time. She asked whether the fiscal note contained funding
related to tests that were outsourced to the State of
Washington. Mr. Dym replied that the fiscal note did not
include funding related to outsourced tests. He explained
that all driving offenses would be handled under the
department's existing contract and grant money.
2:14:38 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether the 480 cases supported
by the fiscal note were only related to possession cases.
Mr. Dym answered in the affirmative. The lab would be able
to handle up to 480 samples before increasing the
turnaround time.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether the fiscal note focused
only on distributors and did not cover people who
experienced adverse safety implications. Mr. Dym answered
in many cases a person suspected of driving under the
influence was also in possession of illegal material. In
such cases an analysis was conducted on a blood sample to
test for the DUI and another analysis was conducted on the
substance.
Vice-Chair Fairclough questioned whether a blood analysis
for alcohol would identify the presence of K2. Mr. Dym
replied that the test would not identify the substance. He
added that when alcohol was suspected and the blood sample
at the lab came back negative, the lab would send the
sample out for toxicology analysis.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether local hospitals had the
ability to perform toxicology testing that would identify
K2 in the blood of an admitted patient. Mr. Dym did not
know. He doubted that they would be able to identify the
substance given the rarity of expertise on the material.
Vice-Chair Fairclough recounted a story about a young woman
who had been found unconscious. It had only been possible
to determine what was wrong with the girl because another
youth came forward with information about a substance that
they had smoked that they had thought was marijuana. She
explained that the hospital had run toxicology tests to
identify the poison in the girl's bloodstream.
Representative Wilson asked whether the substance was
routinely tested for when a person was pulled over for a
DUI. She asked whether a sample that was sent for analysis
would automatically be tested for everything. Mr. Dym
explained that toxicology samples were initially screened
for alcohol and were then passed on for further analysis.
An officer or the prosecutor's office could request for a
sample to undergo additional toxicology testing when a
person suspected of impairment tested negative for alcohol.
He noted that the lab had just received their first
positive toxicology test.
Representative Wilson asked what it would cost to send all
samples to the State of Washington for toxicology testing.
Mr. Dym replied that the fiscal note only covered
possession cases that would go to SCDL. The lab's contract
covered up to 520 requests per year and it believed that
there was enough room to cover potential DUI samples that
could arise.
Representative Guttenberg pointed to Page 2, Sections 7-16
of the bill that described various compounds. In Section 16
the bill discussed ensuring that similar compounds were
included. He communicated that the bill appeared to focus
on specific definitions and also included language to
prevent the exclusion of certain products with slightly
altered chemical compositions. He wondered whether any
other products could potentially be included under the
description in the bill.
Mr. Dym answered that the bill included language on
geometric or positional isomers. He explained core
components had been identified that could be modified by
chemists. Language about positional isomers took care of
most items that could be similar. He noted that explaining
the chemical terms and definitions would put a slight
burden on the lab particularly in court. He delineated that
the bill would not cover a new drug but it would cover
cases in which there had been rapidly modified chemical
tweaks.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the focus was
limited to the particular drug and did not include items
that it did not intend, such as aspirin. Mr. Dym believed
that the language in the bill was specific to the class of
synthetic cannabinoids and others that were very closely
related.
Ms. Kloster discussed that the bill updated language
related to schedule III drugs that was similar to existing
language for schedule II drugs. She discussed that the
removal of one molecule would not have a significant effect
on the substance.
Representative Guttenberg wanted to make certain that the
bill did not include a substance that they did not intend
to make illegal.
Representative Doogan cited concern about fiscal note #4.
He discussed that the drug was probably not produced in
Alaska, there was no test in Alaska to determine use of the
substance, and only one positive test had been received
from an outsourced lab. He did not understand how the
fiscal note could be $126,000 and was not inclined to add a
position given the lack of evidence that there was a need.
He explained that a position could always be added at a
later time in the event that the substance turned out to be
widespread.
2:25:22 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that there would be a
conversation with his staff, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and the sponsor and regarding the fiscal
notes.
Vice-Chair Fairclough hoped to communicate that there was a
harmful substance in Alaska that looked similar to rolled
marijuana and that people should be aware that products
were labeled controlled substances for a reason. She
relayed that people should be careful and that they were
risking their lives by using the substance.
Representative Gara wondered whether prosecutions that
would occur as a result of the legislation should be
included in a fiscal note from the Public Defender Agency,
DOL, or the Office of Public Advocacy.
Co-Chair Stoltze reported that DOL was following the issue
and that there would be a conversation with OMB about the
fiscal notes.
HB 7 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 3 Explanation of Changes.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 State by State Analysis.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Legal Opinion dated 012811.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB7.supporting testimony.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Support Letters.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.NCSL Research Report.10.5.10.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Memo regarding changes to CS.2.11.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Leg Research Report.Other states penalities.2.8.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.K2 and Spice_Straight Tox.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.DEA Press Release on Synthetic Materials.11.24.10.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.ADN Article.Assembly outlaws chemical.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| CS HB 7 (JUD) Sponsor Statement.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Sample License Plates.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Legal Research.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 119 Sectional Analysis CS EDT.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/15/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 AIDEA Bill Information Sheet and letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/15/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 119 |
| HB7CS(JUD)NEWFN-LAW-02-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB3 ACLU Letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |