Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
02/06/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Presentation: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (fasd) & the Equivalence of Intellectual/developmental Disorder | |
| HB79 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 79-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
1:15:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the last order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 79 "An Act relating to controlled substances;
relating to marijuana; relating to driving motor vehicles when
there is an open marijuana container; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that on February 24, 2015, according to
the initiative, marijuana becomes legal for personal
consumption. She opined that the legislature would like a bill
in which the provisions are clear to the citizens, law
enforcement community, and the legal community. Chair LeDoux
specified it is her intent that the bill that is passed out of
the House Judiciary Standing Committee heeds to the will of the
people who voted for Ballot Measure 2. She proffered that the
bill is 70 percent of the way there.
1:18:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 79, Version 29-LS0409\E, Martin, 2/4/15,
as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion.
CHAIR LEDOUX, in responding to Representative Gruenberg's
question, advised that the sectional analysis relates to CS,
Version\E.
1:19:07 PM
THOMAS BROWN, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, paraphrased the following testimony [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 79 revises some of Alaska's criminal
statutes to ensure that the will of the electorate is
respected by cleaning up some of the now-contradictory
laws regarding marijuana. The purpose of this bill is
to provide our law enforcement community with clear
instructions so that innocent people are not punished
for following the law.
The first version of this bill was deeply
unpopular and I'd like to emphasize, as the chair
already remarked, that the CS before you, version E,
is still a work in progress. The central complaint
against the original draft was that it merely provided
a defense for conduct involving marijuana, instead of
making the conduct itself lawful. We believe that
this draft goes a long way towards establishing the
legality of marijuana and associated activities.
Again, this bill is not a final but merely a step
forward and we view this hearing as an opportunity for
the public and the affected departments to make their
opinions heard and to actively solicit their advice.
I would like to present a brief summary of what
the CS for HB 79 would do. I am prepared to answer
some of your questions and we have experts available
here or online who can answer the more technical
questions the committee.
First, it should be noted that a good portion of
the sections of the CS House Bill 79 are conforming
amendments and that many of the other sections are the
result of specific choices we made and asked the
drafters to consider. Since the bill removes
marijuana from the list of controlled substances, a
large number of statutes had to be amended to re-
include marijuana as those statutes now no longer
apply to marijuana. Basically, since the voters
seemed to want marijuana regulated like alcohol it was
felt that they still wanted some uses of marijuana to
be illegal. So some new crimes had to be created to
reflect that new reality.
It is a priority for the bill to conform as much
as possible to the initiative and to marijuana's new
legal status. We still have some way to go on that.
So with your patience I'd like to present a rough
sectional analysis of the CS for House Bill 79.
1:21:30 PM
MR. BROWN paraphrased the following sectional analysis regarding
CSHB 79:
Section 1, 2 - re-include marijuana as a substance
which a person may not be under the influence of and
operate an aircraft, or use ski trails or equipment.
Section 3 - amends the licensing requirement for nurse
practitioners to re-include marijuana abuse as a
condition for denial, suspension or revocation of
license.
1:21:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred Sec. 3, page 2, line 21,
"habitually abuses" and asked whether there is a definition of
abuse.
MR. BROWN advised there is not a definition in HB 79, but it is
in other statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further asked if it is defined in AS
08.68.
MR. BROWN stated it is not defined in AS 08.68, in the portion
in HB 79. He deferred to someone from the Department of Health
& Social Services (DHSS).
1:23:01 PM
MR. BROWN continued his paraphrased analysis:
Section 4 - removes schedule 6A controlled substances
from the list of agents an optometrist cannot
prescribe.
Section 5 - prohibits pawnbrokers from knowingly
entering into a transaction with someone under the
influence of marijuana.
Section 6 - defines illegal activity involving
marijuana as a reason for abatement of certain places.
Section 7 - re-includes operating a vehicle under the
influence of marijuana as a serious criminal offense.
He noted this is not statute titles for DUI laws as
this is a separate section altogether. That section
will need revisiting in order to ascertain that
driving under the influence of marijuana is in fact
part of the regular DUI statutes for Alaska.
Section 8 - re-establishes the liability of someone
driving under the influence of marijuana for personal
injury or wrongful death.
Section 9, 10 - removes schedule 6A controlled
substances from the statutes defining murder in the
second degree and murder of an unborn child.
Section 11, 12 - re-incorporates marijuana into the
statutes defining weapons misconduct in the third and
fourth degrees.
Section 13, 14 - removes marijuana from crimes of
misconduct with a controlled substance in the third
and fourth degrees.
Section 15-20 are conforming amendments.
Section 21 - specifies marijuana in the general
provisions definition of intoxication.
Section 22, 23 - allows for the prohibition of
marijuana use as a condition for pre-trial release.
Section 24 - is a conforming amendment, clarifying
definitions to match the initiative language.
Section 25 - establishes that law enforcement agency
laboratory reports are evidence of the weight of
marijuana.
Section 26, 27 - allows for the prohibition of
marijuana as an authorized sentence or for a term of
probation.
Section 28 - describes the punishment allowable for
possessing marijuana in violation of statute.
Section 29-31 - clarifies that marijuana can be an
aggravating or mitigating factor in the sentencing of
certain crimes.
Section 32 - is a conforming amendment, clarifying
definitions to match the initiative language.
Section 33, 34 - clarifies that synthetic drugs which
resemble marijuana are still illegal. He noted that
previously they were illegal only because they were
facsimiles of a controlled substance. Marijuana is no
longer a controlled substance and the synthetic drugs
must be made illegal in and of themselves and not
because they resemble marijuana.
Section 35-37 - eliminates the requirement to defer to
federal substance scheduling standards in the case of
marijuana.
Section 38 - provides an affirmative defense for
registered caregivers charged with offenses related to
marijuana.
Section 39 - is a conforming amendment, clarifying
definitions to match the initiative language.
Section 40 - establishes that a person 21 years of age
or older may own, operate, be an agent of or be
employed by a retail marijuana store with a valid
registration and perform all of the related duties and
activities and not be prosecuted for it or have it be
a basis for seizure or forfeiture.
Section 41 - establishes that a person 21 years of age
or older may own, operate, be an agent of or be
employed by a marijuana cultivation facility with a
valid registration and perform all of the related
duties and activities and not be prosecuted for it or
have it be a basis for seizure or forfeiture.
Section 42 - establishes that a person 21 years of age
or older may own, operate, be an agent of or be
employed by a marijuana product manufacturing facility
with a valid registration and perform all of the
related duties and activities and not be prosecuted
for it or have it be a basis for seizure or
forfeiture.
Section 43 - establishes that a person 21 years of age
or older may own, operate, be an agent of or be
employed by a marijuana testing facility with a valid
registration and perform all of the related duties and
activities and not be prosecuted for it or have it be
a basis for seizure or forfeiture.
Section 44 - technical changes to initiative language.
Section 45 - describes the crime of misconduct
involving marijuana in the 1st degree and classifies
it as a class A misdemeanor; describes the crime of
misconduct involving marijuana in the second degree
and classifies it as a class B misdemeanor; describes
the crimes of misconduct involving marijuana in the
third and fourth degrees and classifies them as
violations; allows for bail forfeiture for marijuana
related violations; describes offenses defined by
amounts; provides for an affirmative defense for
medical marijuana related offenses; provides
definitions.
Section 46 - defines marijuana concentrate.
Section 47 - allows for protective orders to require
the respondent to participate in marijuana abuse
treatment programs.
Section 48, 49 - prohibits the violent crimes
compensation board from denying a victim based on
their use of marijuana or from being injured in a
vehicle operated by someone under the influence of
marijuana.
Section 50 - for insurance purposes defines drug abuse
to include marijuana dependency.
Section 51 - for labor practices defines drug testing
to include marijuana as defined in the initiative.
Section 52 - allows for parental visitation rights to
be conditioned on the abstention of marijuana use.
Section 53-55 - prohibits driving in a motor vehicle
with an open marijuana container that is not in the
trunk of the vehicle; defines the term open container;
allows for the transport of an open marijuana
container on a motor driven cycle or behind the last
upright seat in a trunkless vehicle.
Section 56, 57 - allows for the prohibition of
marijuana use or the entering of an establishment
where marijuana is sold as a condition of parole.
Section 58 - is a conforming amendment defining
controlled substance.
Section 59, 60 - prevents prisoners from possessing
material related to the manufacture of marijuana and
allows for the consideration of marijuana use as a
determinant for terms of imprisonment.
Section 61-65 - defines illegal activity involving
marijuana and prohibits tenants from engaging in such
while renting property; provides technical changes and
conforming amendments.
Section 66 - removes marijuana as a controlled
substance.
Section 67 - defines marijuana as an intoxicant.
Section 68 - criminalizes minor access to marijuana
establishments.
Section 69 - requires infant care providers to report
marijuana exposure of an infant.
Section 70-74 - requires persons incapacitated by
marijuana in a public place to be taken into
protective custody and brought to a treatment or
health facility; requires such persons to be released
once no longer incapacitated; requires next of kin of
such persons to be notified upon admission to the
heath or treatment facility; and prevents action for
damages to be taken upon the decision to deliver such
persons to a facility.
Section 75 - allows for the commitment of a person
incapacitated by marijuana to a public health facility
for emergency treatment.
Section 76, 77 - allows for certain authorized persons
to petition for a 30-day involuntary commitment to a
public treatment facility of someone incapacitated by
marijuana; allows for the extension of involuntary
commitment.
Section 78 - defines drug abuser to include marijuana
dependency.
Section 79 - excludes marijuana from the definition of
drug.
Section 80 - defines the incapacitation by marijuana.
Section 81 - defines intoxicated person to include
impairment by marijuana.
Section 82 - conforming amendment to define marijuana
as in the initiative language.
Section 83, 84 - allows for the prohibition of
marijuana use as a condition of participation in
substance abuse programs and sets testing requirements
of marijuana by these programs.
Section 85 - conforming amendments of the definitions
of intoxicated person and marijuana as described in
the initiative language.
Section 86 - repeals multiple statutes no longer
necessary as a result of the initiative or this bill.
Section 87 - clarifies the applicability of certain
sections.
Section 88 - provides the effective date.
1:32:33 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX used Section 77, which refers to involuntary
commitment proceedings, as an example. Previously, she noted,
because marijuana was considered a controlled substance it was
already included. She advised that sections such as this are
considered conforming amendments as opposed to a situation where
an individual could not be involuntarily committed as a result
of marijuana use.
MR. BROWN agreed and indicated that the word "marijuana" was
specifically added as it is no longer a drug or a controlled
substance. He further indicated that "if we want to be able to
continue treating people who have issues with a substance,
controlled or not, we need to be very specific."
CHAIR LEDOUX conveyed that as she reviewed the bill it appears
"there were all sorts of things" in which now marijuana would
subject an individual to involuntary commitment, et cetra, et
cetra, wherein it hadn't been able to happen before. She asked
if her assessment was correct.
MR. BROWN answered "correct."
1:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the basic intent is to enact
the language the voters approved in the initiative and then
basically supplement the rest of the statutes to make them
consistent with what the voters approved.
MR. BROWN answered in the affirmative and stated that removing
marijuana as a controlled substance basically leaves everything
open and it must be made specific in the statute.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
1:35:26 PM
TIM HINTERBERGER, Ph.D., Chair, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana
Like Alcohol in Alaska. Speaking on behalf of Dr. Hinterberger,
Rachelle Yeung, Legislative Analyst, Marijuana Policy Project
(MMP) paraphrased Dr. Hinterberger's, February 5, 2015
Memorandum directed to Thomas Brown as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the early
redraft of HB 79.
The draft revision that became available for our
review on February 4 takes a substantially improved
approach compared to the earlier version. Rather than
merely creating a defense against state criminal
charges, the revision would exempt most of the conduct
allowed by Measure 2 from Alaska criminal statutes.
While this draft is far better overall, it still
includes provisions we view as not conforming to the
will of voters. Our concerns and suggestions are
detailed in the following pages. Perhaps the most
concerning elements of the redraft are:
legal protections for adults. Measure 2's AS
17.38.020 makes marijuana-related conduct
lawful it protects adults from not only state
charges but also municipal offenses; and it
prevents seizures and property forfeitures. In
contract, the redraft would merely remove state
crimes.
including lowering to one ounce the amount of
marijuana adults can lawfully possess in the
location where they cultivate plants.
of extracts for making edibles.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please
let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dr. Timothy Hinterberger, Chair
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol
Karen O'Keefe, Director
State Policies
Alaska Marijuana Policy Project
Regarding: Draft Revisions to HB 79
Position: Oppose Unless Amended
Specific Concerns With the Draft Redraft of HB 79
1. As was the case with the original version of HB
79, the proposed redraft would repeal Measure 2's
comprehensive legal protections for adults and
replace them with inadequate protections.
(Sec. 86)
1:39:08 PM
The committee took an at ease from 1:39 to 1:41: p.m.
1:41:32 PM
[DR. HINTERBERGER'S testimony continued] Measure 2
makes it lawful under Alaska state law and the laws of
all of its political subdivisions for adults 21 and
older to possess, give away to other adults, and
cultivate marijuana for personal use. (AS 17.38.020)
It also explicitly provides that that conduct may not
be a basis for seizure or asset forfeiture. HB 79's
Section 86 would repeal these comprehensive legal
protections. While the redraft removes criminal
penalties for most (but not all) of the conduct
allowed by Measure 2, doing so is not nearly as
comprehensive as the protections provided in AS
17.38.020.
It is essential that AS 17.38.020 remain on the books
to make sure that adults' personal use activities
related to marijuana are not subject to penalties
under local ordinances and to protect them from
seizure and forfeiture. It is also crucial that these
activities be explicitly "lawful" under state law. Any
number of state and municipal statutes may refer to
"illicit" or "illegal" activity. AS 17.38.020 makes it
clear that the marijuana-related activity covered by
that section is indeed lawful under state law,
notwithstanding federal law.
2. As was the case with the original version of HB
79, the proposed redraft would criminalize
conduct Measure 2 makes legal, including by
reducing the amount of marijuana adults could
possess.
The current version of HB 79 deletes marijuana and
hash from controlled substances and creates a new
crime for marijuana offenses: AS 17.38.200. This is
generally a very sensible approach. However, the
specifics of what is criminalized are unacceptable.
The current draft of HB 79 dramatically restricts
adults' freedoms relating to marijuana by
criminalizing conduct that voters made lawful.
• Measure 2's AS 17.38.020 (b) provides that
adults aged 21 and older may grow six plants
(three of which may be mature) and possess all of
the marijuana produced from those plants on those
premises. AS 17.38.200 (a)(1) and (2) reduces the
amount they can possess or manufacture by
criminalizing "one or more preparations,
compounds, mixtures, or substances of an
aggregate weight of more than one ounce
containing marijuana." While AS 17.38.200's
language is somewhat ambiguous, it also appears
to conflict with the provisions of Measure 2 that
allow possession of up to an ounce at locations
other than the personal cultivation location,
excluding the weight of non-marijuana
ingredients. AS 17.38.200(a)(1) and (2) appear
to include the non-marijuana ingredients when
calculating the weight.
• The redraft would delete Measure 2's criminal
penalties for cultivating marijuana where it is
visible to the public, where it is not secured,
or without the consent of aproperty owner. (AS
17.38.030) Instead, it would criminalize mere
possession or display (in addition to
cultivating) in any of these types of locations.
(AS 17.38.220(a)(1)) Measure 2 specifies that a
private property owner may prohibit marijuana,
but that is very different from requiring an
adult to get a property owner's affirmative
consent prior to entering their restaurant,
private parking lot, home, or car with a small
amount of marijuana on his or her person. In
addition, creating a new crime for doing so is
inappropriate and not on par with how alcohol is
treated.
• The redraft, like the original HB 79, conflicts
with Measure 2 by penalizing mere display of
marijuana by those over 21. (AS 17.38.230)
3. A significant improvement over the original
version of HB 79, the proposed redraft would
still prohibit certain safe methods of extraction
by adults. (AS 17.38.200(a)(4))
We do not object to imposing a ban on the home
production of extracts using methods that can be
dangerous when conducted at a residence. However, an
exception also needs to be made for water-based
extractions, which cannot cause explosions.
Extractions are important to patients who use non-
smoked methods of administration.
4. As was the case with the original version of HB
79, the proposed redraft would not make any
exceptions allowing for individuals under 21 on
the premises of a licensee. (AS 17.38.200(a)(5))
Three types of exceptions should be included:
• for individuals who are not employed by the
marijuana business and do not work directly with
marijuana, but who have legitimate work at the
establishment, such as EMTs, regulatory staff,
maintenance personnel, elected officials, and
members of the media. Notably, there are several
far broader exceptions to a similar statute for
persons under 21 who enter the premises of an
establishment selling alcohol. (AS 04.16.049)
• for registered medical marijuana patients under
the age of 21, who currently have no safe way to
obtain the medicine Alaska voters have allowed
them to use since 1998.
• to include a defense for retailers who have a
good faith belief that a customer is 21 and older
- based on the presentation of an ID card that
appears to both be valid and to be the person who
presents it - as is the case for alcohol sales.
(AS 04.21.050)
5. As was the case with the original version of HB
79, the proposed redraft would criminalize
driving with a marijuana accessory or a container
of marijuana in one's vehicle if there is
evidence it has been consumed in the vehicle.
(AS 28.35.029(a))
Measure 2 explicitly makes transportation of marijuana
by adults 21 and older lawful. (AS 17.38.020(a), which
the redraft would repeal.) The redraft - and the
original version of HB 79 - includes an unnecessary
restriction on "open containers" that appears to run
counter to Measure 2 and which would be particularly
onerous on patients. Private establishments, including
nursing homes, may restrict their residents from using
marijuana. (See: "Medical Marijuana Not Allowed At
Nursing Home" http//www.elderlawanswer.com/medical-
marijuana-not-allowed-at-nursing-home-4954) A parked
vehicle may be the only place where a patient is able
to administer their medicine (sublingually, by
consuming edibles, by vaporization, or otherwise).
To address concerns about driving under the influence,
which of course remains illegal, we would not object
to penalizing smoking or vaporizing marijuana in a
moving vehicle.
1:46:33 PM
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Public Defender, Appellate Division,
Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, stated
that CSHB 79 removes the defense to prosecution for certain
marijuana related conduct which is more consistent with the
intent of the voters. She expressed that of particular concern
is Section 45, which creates new marijuana offenses as
misconduct involving marijuana in the first, second, third and
fourth degree. Generally, she related, this section rewrites
the legal protections from marijuana related conduct enacted
specifically in AS 17.38.020 of the initiative. Essentially,
she stated, it continues to criminalize some aspects of conduct
that the voters elected to legalize. She referred to misconduct
involving marijuana in the first degree, proposed AS 17.38.200,
which criminalizes knowingly possessing more than one ounce of
marijuana or knowingly manufacturing or delivering or possessing
with the intent to manufacture or deliver more than one ounce of
marijuana. When an individual purchases marijuana from a
marijuana licensed facility, the limit for doing so is one ounce
but, she stated, marijuana as defined under the initiative
includes plants. This provision, she noted, would effectively
eliminate other portions of AS 17.38.020, specifically (b) and
(c), which allows for the cultivating of a certain number of
plants or the transfer of a certain number of plants to another
person, the weight of which is almost certain to be over one
ounce. The initiative makes legal the possession, growing,
processing or transporting of no more than six marijuana plants,
up to three of which can be mature flowering plants, and the
possession of all of the marijuana produced from those plants if
possessed on the premises where those plants were grown.
1:50:16 PM
MS. WOLLENBERG pointed out that AS 17.38.200 [CSHB 79] prohibits
possessing more than one ounce of marijuana and conflicts with
the initiative. Similarly, the initiative allows for the
transfer of one ounce or less plus up to six immature marijuana
plants to someone 21 or older without remuneration [AS
17.38.020(c)], she conveyed. By definition, she advised, that
portion of the initiative would be more than one ounce and;
therefore, CSHB 79 conflicts with intent of the voters. She
suggested the committee graft onto the proposed misconduct
statutes the provisions from the initiative that essentially
govern growing and transferring marijuana and the limits set by
the voters. She then referred to AS 17.38.210, misconduct
involving marijuana in the second degree, and advised there
appears to be an attempt to import the portion of the initiative
that allows for the transfer of up to one ounce of marijuana
plus six immature marijuana plants to another person. She
expressed that AS 17.38.210(a)(2)(a) conflicts with AS 17.38.200
which does not allow for the delivery of over one ounce. She
opined that those two provisions as drafted appear to be
inconsistent. She moved to AS 17.38.220, [misconduct involving
marijuana in the third degree] and stated that the initiative is
intended to set certain restrictions on personal cultivation of
marijuana in the home. She described this section as broader
than in the initiative by also restricting possession and
displaying marijuana plants in certain circumstances. She
provided that this is problematic because it would essentially
prohibit possessing marijuana in a place subject to public view
even though the initiative allows people to possess marijuana in
or out of the home up to certain amounts and to transport
marijuana up to a certain amount. In order for this section to
comport with the initiative it needs to be limited to
manufacturing with the idea being that if someone is growing
plants it should conform to the restrictions set out in the
initiative to shield those plants from public view. She pointed
out that with regard to AS 17.38.230, [misconduct involving
marijuana in the fourth degree] the initiative prohibits people
21 or older from using any amount of marijuana in a public place
and doesn't prohibit transporting certain amount of marijuana in
public. She suggested that in order to comport with the
initiative, remove the word "displays."
1:54:32 PM
MS. WOLLENBERG related that AS 17.38.020 of the initiative
appears to have been removed with regard to personal conduct
offenses. Although, she noted, it is still maintained to a
certain extent in Sections 40-43 which deal with offenses by
commercial marijuana facilities. The language there makes clear
that the conduct which is legalized shall not serve as a basis
for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Alaska law. That
language is not repeated in the personal use misconduct statutes
and the concern is that removing the language in one area but
leaving it in another area may cause courts, parties, or law
enforcement to read in some significance to the fact that the
language about seizure has been removed from the personal use
offenses. She opined that would not be consistent with voter
intent. She stated that the initiative intended that the
conduct that is made lawful not constitute an offense under
state or local law. It appears to her that the change in
language from "shall not be an offense" to "are not offenses"
does not have much significance. Although, she offered, there
is a chance that the subtle change in language would leave
conduct that is otherwise intended to be lawful open to
potentially being made unlawful by local municipalities. She
suggested that the committee consider keeping the "shall not be
an offense" language in tact as it was in the initiative.
1:56:49 PM
MS. WOLLENBERG referred to Section 68 and advised it removes
from the realm of juvenile jurisdiction certain conduct by
minors, in particular using false identification and
misrepresenting age with regard to registered marijuana
premises. She advised that removing it from the juvenile
jurisdiction statute would essentially mean that it is pursued
in adult court and open to public view and no longer
confidential. She proffered that prosecuting juveniles for this
conduct without making the records confidential could have
unintended consequences for job prospects or otherwise. She
suggested the committee consider making this conduct
confidential which is more in keeping with the goal of ensuring
there is some consequence for minors, but not a consequence more
severe than what is intended.
1:58:42 PM
BRUCE SCHULTE, Spokesman, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis
Legislation, referred to his 2/6/15 Memorandum directed to
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux and advised that AS
17.38.200(1)(a) and AS 17.38.200(2) of CSHB 79 refers to
definitions of marijuana and its related compounds by weight as
being one ounce. He suggested rewording based on the fact that
certain edibles, baked goods, or liquids, may well be over one
ounce and yet contain a small fraction of marijuana. With
regard to AS 17.38.200(4), the coalition does not support,
condone, or recommend the use of butane to extract hash oil and
suggested a language change to specifically refer to volatile or
explosive gases. He mentioned that paragraph 4 of the memo is a
grammatical issue. He opined that the heart of the initiative
for many voters is AS 17.38.020 and 030 which speaks to personal
use of marijuana and cultivation. In that regard, he concluded,
those sections should be preserved as originally written in the
initiative. He remarked that in the realm of "public place"
versus "private" the coalition does not condone anyone consuming
marijuana in the street, in front of restaurants, or any
obviously public place. He pointed out that there are
variations on the definition of "public place" versus "private
place" that should be clarified. With regard to special events
operating under a permit or license at the state or local level,
he suggested, a specific provision written that allows the
consumption of marijuana products at the special events site.
He advised that local officials have asked the state to provide
an overarching definition of "public place" versus "private
place." He then acknowledged that sections of the initiative
should be repealed where they were replaced by corresponding
legal language.
2:04:59 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
2:05:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. Version \E was
before the committee.
[HB 79 was held over.]
2:05:52 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB79 Committe Material - AS 11.81.900.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Committee Material - AG Letter.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Committee Material - GLO Letter.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Draft Proposed CS ver E.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Supporting Documents - DOL Brief.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Supporting Documents - Letter Vern Gunter.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Supporting Documents - MPP.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Supporting Documents - Ballot Measure 2 (2).pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Supporting Documents - FNSB Letter.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |