Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/25/2004 01:04 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 367-LICENSING SEX-ORIENTED BUSINESSES CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 367, "An Act relating to the licensing and regulation of sex-oriented businesses and sex-oriented business entertainers; relating to protection of the safety and health of and to education of young persons who perform in adult entertainment establishments; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee is CSHB 367(L&C).] CHAIR McGUIRE explained that the committee has two proposed committee substitutes (CS) in the committee packet: Version 23- LS1394\V, Craver, 2/23/04; Version 23-LS1394\W, Craver, 2/25/04. She also informed the committee that the committee packet should contain written testimony from Carol and Kathy Hartman, the police department, and other written testimony. Chair McGuire noted that Colleen Duree (ph), clinical counselor, had misunderstood that public testimony would be allowed today, and therefore she suggested that Ms. Duree provide written testimony or oral testimony during the House Finance Committee hearing on this legislation. The committee took an at-ease from 4:15 p.m. to 4:16 p.m. Number 0290 CHAIR McGUIRE turned to her proposed CS, Version W. She pointed out that the committee packet includes an amendment to page 10 of Version W. The language being inserted by the amendment to page 10 would incorporate language that is in Version V by Representative Gara. She pointed out that on page 11 of Version V there are two paragraphs labeled (8) in Section 3, and therefore on page 11, line 9, of Version V "(8)" should be changed to "(9)". CHAIR McGUIRE explained that both she and Representative Gara agree that an individual must be 21 years of age to strip. However, the disagreement comes into play with regard to the age at which an individual can patronize adult-oriented businesses. Version W specifies that one must be 21 years of age to strip or patronize an adult-oriented businesses. The supreme court opinions that she has read specify that there is no constitutional right to entertainment. Therefore, she indicated that [Version W] is constitutional. CHAIR McGUIRE opined that she wanted a situation in which one who enters or strips in an adult-oriented business would have to be 21 years of age regardless of whether the business serves alcohol. There has been compelling and overwhelming evidence that drug solicitation, drug use, and a presence of alcohol are prevalent at adult-oriented businesses. TAPE 04-26, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR McGUIRE related her opinion that the policy behind changing the alcohol laws in Alaska, as well as in the Lower 48, was the desire not to allow people under the age of 21 to drink. The aforementioned was [decided] in light of the information regarding the brain development [during the time prior to age 21], the fact that young people who are drinking are more likely to be in automobile accidents and place themselves in a position of danger, and young people are less experienced with regard to handling alcohol. Because alcohol is present in these clubs, she opined that this is an opportunity for entertainment at the age of 21. Number 0109 CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged that there are some women that are patrons and some men that strip, but generally speaking women are stripping and men are patrons. She recalled the concern of discrimination against certain genders if the age at which one is allowed to strip is 21 and the age at which one is allowed to patronize an adult-oriented establishment is 18. She said she believes there is some practical merit to that, although it doesn't seem to "fair out" constitutionally because of the need to look at each class: stripper versus patron. Chair McGuire related her belief that under Version W, strip clubs that serve alcohol will become the predominant "fixture." Therefore, there would be additional [oversight] from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) due to the presence of alcohol in the establishment. She noted that she had considered linking the stripper license to an alcohol license, but ultimately decided against it. She mentioned that at age 18 one can't smoke or purchase cigarettes. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to Representative Anderson, clarified that under Version W the dancer and patron of adult-oriented businesses have to be 21 years of age. In Version V, the [dancer] has be 21 years of age at an adult-oriented business while a patron of such an establishment can be 18-21 years of age. REPRESENTATIVE GARA specified that [under Version V] an individual under the age of 21 can patronize nonalcoholic adult- oriented business. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON pointed out that CSHB 367(L&C) specified that both the patron and the dancer had to be 21 years of age, which is the same as Version W. Number 0366 CHAIR McGUIRE agreed that CSHB 367(L&C) is what is encompassed in Version W while Version V embodies Representative Gara's bifurcated age concept. Chair McGuire highlighted that [both versions] changed the references to "sex-oriented businesses" to "adult-oriented businesses" in response to those who were offended by the reference to "sex-oriented businesses." [Both versions] specify that regardless of whether the adult-oriented business serves alcohol or not, the business will be regulated under the state's laws. These businesses will have to obtain a license. The only difference in the licensing requirements from the original legislation is that [these two versions] no longer license the stripper. Both versions added a proof of age requirement, which specifies that if [a business] is criminally negligent in failing to ascertain the person's age, then that [business'] license may be pulled. CHAIR McGUIRE highlighted that a new addition to this legislation is the business hours requirement. On page 7 of both versions it specifies that the business hours are set to those of similarly situated businesses that serve alcohol. Therefore, between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., the establishment has to be closed. She noted that most municipalities have superseded the aforementioned law and require closure at an earlier hour. Both versions specify that the business hour requirement is either the state law or the municipal ordinance that supersedes the state law. This attempts to address testimony that related that these clubs have began to serve as an "after-hours" club. Number 0625 REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed that there is only one major difference between the versions, which he characterized as a policy call. With regard to constitutional considerations, Representative Gara suggested that those are probably a wash between the versions. The belief, he said, is that with any [constitutional] challenges either legislation would be upheld. Returning to the policy decision, Representative Gara said that both he and Chair McGuire believe that the harm to young people who perform naked [in these adult-oriented] businesses is phenomenal. Evidence shows that in some places drunken customers verbally assault dancers, pimps and drug dealers proposition dancers, and there are wage violations. Furthermore, the no-touching rules at these [adult-oriented businesses] are repeatedly violated. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that one report specifies that 100 percent of all dancers report physical abuse at some point during the dancers' career and 100 percent witness abuse of other dancers. Furthermore, 77 percent of the dancers report being stalked after leaving the club and 100 percent have been propositioned for prostitution. These [adult-oriented businesses] aren't a place at which 18-year-old girls should work. At age 21, one can make a more mature decision, he opined. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that [both he and Chair McGuire] want to regulate those dancers who are considered to be too young to perform nude. However, he noted that [he and Chair McGuire] differ with regard to whether the patron has to be 21 years of age. There is a valid argument that can be made regarding not allowing 18-20 year olds to patronize these clubs. However, Representative Gara said that [restricting the age of the patron to 21 and older] goes too far for his comfort level. He explained that he was convinced of the aforementioned by the notion that if one is old enough to be in the military, one is old enough to make the decision to patronize a strip club. Therefore, he wanted to maintain a narrower focus and regulate what he considered to be the greater problem with those working [naked at these clubs]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that there shouldn't be concern that if you regulate the dancer's age one would necessarily have to regulate the patron's age. Both of the versions require that these [adult-oriented businesses] are going to be licensed. Therefore, if these [adult-oriented businesses] allow someone under the age of 18 to enter the business, it can be closed. Furthermore, if people under the age of 18 are employed at these [adult-oriented businesses], the business can be closed. Moreover, persistent wage violations can result in the establishment's closure. REPRESENTATIVE GARA highlighted that [both versions] prohibit private rooms because there is more touching. He recalled that some of the former entertainers were concerned because [the adult-oriented business] shared an entrance with apartment buildings or other places where young children were in attendance. Therefore, [adult-oriented businesses] have to have a separate entrance and washroom. Representative Gara reiterated that both versions are the same, save the age difference discussed earlier, thus he left it to the committee to decide which proposed CS is best. The committee took an at-ease from 4:35 p.m. to 4:38 p.m. Number 1020 [Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's log notes, was the following: CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HB 367 would be held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|