Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
01/28/2015 01:00 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79|| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| HB 79 |
HB 79-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
SB 30-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
1:08:32 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only 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." and SENATE BILL NO. 30 "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 advised that HB 79 and SB 30 would not move out of
committee today.
1:11:53 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC), Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development, discussed the overlay of criminal statutes with
regulating marijuana as a legal substance. Alaska Statute Title
4 spells out all of the rules around alcohol which, she
explained, has been deemed a dangerous substance and therefore,
is regulated. Title 4 depicts misdemeanors and felonies
relating to alcohol where individuals are prosecuted for those
crimes and are not only license holders, but individuals
selling, furnishing, or serving alcohol to minors. She offered
that the committees could engage in a philosophical discussion
as to whether marijuana will be a regulated substance,
controlled substance, or a scheme where it is both. She advised
that the feedback she received from Major Dennis Casanovas,
Alaska State Troopers, Anchorage Police Department (APD)
officers, and the officers she met in Colorado and other states,
is that the danger of creating a set of rules in many different
places is that it subjects officers in the field to making
determinations that are not "bright lined." She expressed that
the legislature must create very clear lines, as in the "carve
out" procedure in Title 11, that marijuana is a controlled
substance, an illegal substance, except in certain instances
wherein the state declares it to be legal. She described
scenarios where officers in the field wonder whether they are in
Title 11, or Title 17.38, in the world of legalized marijuana.
1:16:22 PM
MS. FRANKLIN continued that within the interplay between Title 4
and Title 17.38 is the question of regulatory board authority
and noted that Title 4 grants authority over all alcohol related
crimes. She highlighted that the ABC Board has five enforcement
officers statewide who are authorized to investigate and charge
individuals with crimes related to alcohol whether or not they
are licensees. She provided that Title 17.38 does not address
enforcement under either the ABC Board or a marijuana control
board and does not address the scope of enforcement powers. She
indicated that the legislature should make it clear whether or
not the board charged with regulating and licensing marijuana
establishments has any power or authority to enforce on someone
selling marijuana without a license, or whether that will fall
to more general law enforcement authority such as the troopers
or local law enforcement.
1:18:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the ABC Board is responsible with
respect to people selling liquor without a license.
MS. FRANKLIN responded in the affirmative and added that the
statute is contained in Title 4. Obviously, she reasoned, since
the ABC Board has only five officers statewide it is not capable
of enforcing on every alcohol related crime. The idea, she
explained, is that there is a centralized agency with
enforcement authority over this substance and someone to assist
law enforcement in determining whether the alcohol related
conduct is legal and authorized. She indicated that is where
the overlay of marijuana under Title 11 becomes blurry.
1:19:34 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that under current alcohol law, it is not
just the ABC Board with authority but also troopers and local
police.
MS. FRANKLIN answered in the affirmative and stated that
enforcement officers authorized under Title 4 have specific
statutory authority. She related that prior to enactment on
February 24, 2015, within the marijuana world the ABC Board does
not have any legal authority over marijuana. She opined that
when the date arrives there is nothing in AS 17.38 authorizing
ABC Board enforcement regarding a delivery service that is
currently delivering marijuana. The question, she emphasized,
is whether there will be authority with a board to enforce
rules, to what extent, and how far the authority extends.
1:21:33 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE noted there has been considerable debate whether
or not this bill should contain a provision giving distinct
authority to the ABC Board or a hybrid marijuana control board.
She asked Ms. Franklin's opinion as to whether that provision
should be included in SB 30, or relegated to a second or third
piece of legislation.
MS. FRANKLIN answered that it depends upon the authority that
will be given to the board in terms of criminal enforcement. In
the event the board is given broader criminal enforcement, such
as the ABC Board has over alcohol, it could be included in the
criminal bill. She opined that on February 24, 2015, the agency
will pursue an emergency regulation to define "public" for
enforcement officers in terms of citing individuals consuming
marijuana in public. She advised that Anchorage passed its
ordinance last night, which is a mirror image of AS 17.38.040
that outlaws consuming marijuana in public. The agency has
worked with the Court System to ascertain that everything would
be in place on the date of enactment, and that a definition of
the term "public" would be forthcoming. With regard to which
bill it is in, she deferred to the legislators. She remarked
that if the board will have broad enforcement authority to put
it [in the bill] early, but if [the board doesn't have broad
enforcement authority] it will not make much difference.
1:26:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recounted that two years ago the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board was moved from the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) to the Department of Commerce, Community,
and Economic Development (DCCED). She questioned under which
department the new board should be placed.
MS. FRANKLIN responded that the ballot measure stipulates DCCED
so the question is whether or not it is a serious enough issue
to go against the voters. She opined that both boards should be
in the same department because to put each substance in
different departments could potentially lead to the substances
being approached in a fundamentally different manner. She said
that the debate over the ABC Board's location has been
concluded, but the debate over what type of department the
regulation of a dangerous substance belongs puts a light on the
difficult balancing act of both of the substances due to the
commercial, public safety and public health concerns. She noted
that Colorado has shown a societal cost to the substance and
those costs must be covered in some manner.
1:29:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the legislature needs to
take statutory steps to provide specific authority for the ABC
Board or a marijuana control board to exert enforcement
authority over marijuana because it was not done in the
initiative.
MS. FRANKLIN agreed that the initiative did create the ABC Board
as the regulatory authority but did not address enforcement. It
spoke about civil penalties for violating rules around licensing
and small penalties for consuming in public. She reiterated
that the initiative did not speak to the penalty for selling
marijuana without a license once licenses are issued, or
enforcement authority in terms of what agency, whether it is a
general law enforcement authority, or whether there is specific
authority with a regulatory agency to enforce against non-
licensees. The initiative depicted creating penalties for
licensees who violate the rules, but not for people operating
completely outside of the licensing authority. She described an
operation that operates in a semi-commercial manner as it
appears on the surface to be a legitimate business, yet are not
waiting to get licenses or to follow the rules. She reiterated
that the legislature needs to make "clear bright lines" as to
the rules.
1:32:13 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that the initiative read that
marijuana cannot be used in a public place and requested
guidance on how "public" place is defined in Colorado. He
referred to [Matanuska-Susitna Borough Resolution Serial No 15-
006] which questioned if a passenger vehicle is considered a
public place, a private baseball field, smoking club, or
standing on the edge of an individual's private property.
MS. FRANKLIN responded that a definition is needed for "public"
as in AS 17.38.040. She advised that the ABC Board's definition
is in AS 11.81.900[52] which read:
(52) "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.
MS. FRANKLIN advised that this definition is used for purposes
of criminal statutes, and drinking in public. The statute does
include some parks so it may or may not include the baseball
field, but it does not include vehicles. She explained that an
officer can refer to a definition that is in place. AS
17.38.040(52) is a similar definition to the Anchorage
definition in its ordinance, and similar to the Colorado
definition. She described it as a fairly standard definition in
terms of defining spaces where an individual's activities affect
others and noted it is the best definition moving forward for
the term "public" as in AS 17.38.040.
1:32:26 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned whether publically owned
facilities such as the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
that is rented out or leased out [would be considered public].
MS. FRANKLIN addressed a section in the initiative that allows
private business and property owners to specifically ban
marijuana. She advised that the publically owned issue has come
up before in terms of where an area is publically owned but is
leased out to individuals, such as in assisted living facility
or receives state funding, would that apply. Ms. Franklin
referred to AS 17.38.120(d), which read:
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a person,
employer, school, hospital, recreation or youth
center, correction facility, corporation or any other
entity who occupies, owns or controls private property
from prohibiting or otherwise regulating the
possession, consumption, use, display, transfer,
distribution, sale, transportation, or growing of
marijuana on or in that property.
MS. FRANKLIN stated that generally speaking a corrections
facility would not be owned by a private entity and it would
seem that these issues will be tested in court by those
facilities banning the substance.
1:36:13 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO requested specifically who Ms. Franklin spoke
with in Colorado, how they addressed edibles, and whether the
non-chemical solvent language in the bill bans all edibles [page
4, lines 21-26]. She questioned what lessons Alaska can learn
from Colorado in how it approaches this issue and edibles.
MS. FRANKLIN responded that the main "boots on the ground"
regulators in Colorado were Andrew Friedman, Colorado Director
of Marijuana Coordination, and Ron Kammerzell, Senior Director
of Enforcement for the Colorado Department of Revenue, and the
marijuana enforcement division employees who enforce marijuana
rules, and several members of the Colorado attorney general's
office working on marijuana. She explained that many of
Colorado's edible issues came about because it already had
licenses issued for medical marijuana dispensaries in place
which were selling very potent edibles, high THC content for
medical marijuana patients with a high tolerance level. In
2014, she advised, the Colorado recreational market began and it
found that very strong edibles were out among consumers who did
not know about potency, were having uncomfortable experiences,
and going to the hospital. Consequently, she remarked, Colorado
changed the rules and created serving sizes, child proof
packaging rules, and a new set of rules to address the
recreational edible market explaining the delayed effect of
edibles. There is now a total limit on the number of servings
in any given package and when a package has more than one
serving it must be resealable to child proof, she offered.
Colorado also created a public education campaign starting with
five milligrams of THC per serving as an edible. She
highlighted that the result of the public education campaign was
that emergency rooms and the Colorado enforcement system saw a
dramatic decrease. She related that Alaska can easily
incorporate Colorado's rules and possibly scale back a bit more
as Alaska does not have a medical marijuana dispensary in place
and it can determine the size of a serving on the lower range
without upsetting medical marijuana licensees. In that regard,
Alaska has the opportunity to cap out the total THC content of
an individual edible product in that should an individual eat
the whole thing they would not experience overdosing, she
surmised.
1:42:55 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE requested Ms. Franklin to prepare a packet for the
House and Senate Judiciary Standing Committees containing
recommendations, including the definition of edibles that was
provided to the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
Together with the packet to include, a binder of items Ms.
Franklin collected in her journeys, written information, and all
backup documents. Chair McGuire also requested a letter
regarding draft [bill] improvements as to whether or not the
issue of licensing boards should be acted upon by the
legislature, and if so, what its authority should be, what Ms.
Franklin would like to see by virtue of a board, and what is
needed when reviewing Title 4 with respect to criminal powers,
investigatory powers, resources, et cetera. Ms. Franklin was
directed to "not leave a stone unturned." Chair McGuire
questioned the work load of the ABC Board given all it has with
Title 4 licenses, whether the ABC Board is ready to take this
on, and what Ms. Franklin envisions the board to look like as it
is a brand new area of commercialization. She expressed the
concern that people are not criminalized when they shouldn't be,
and that the public is not harmed by the commercialization of a
substance that isn't managed properly.
1:48:04 PM
MS. FRANKLIN advised she would provide the information
requested. She further advised that since 1980, the ABC Board
has had five volunteer members, currently two industry
representatives and three public representatives - one of whom
must be from a rural community. She articulated that the ABC
Board, Alaska Mental Health Trust, and Rasmussen Foundation have
worked for two and one-half years on updates to Title 4. She
related that there is the manner in which alcohol has been
regulated, and the manner the broad stakeholders group, which
includes CHAR and many members at all levels and aspects of the
liquor industry, contemplate that liquor should be regulated.
The board, as envisioned by the Title 4 revision and the
stakeholders' committee, is to remain a five member board that
includes one public health and one public safety designation - a
rural public member. She opined that it is an ideal setup for a
marijuana board with the same makeup but with two marijuana
industry representatives. She expressed that if it was under
the ABC Board and two marijuana representatives were added, the
public health and public safety designation would have to be
increased as there would be a total of four industry
representatives on a seven member board. There would be a
public safety concern if the industries had a majority vote on
the board, she commented. In essence, she remarked, the ABC
Board would be a nine member board and once it is a nine member
board, it might as well be two five-member boards. She
described the agency as "very busy" with over 1800 liquor
licenses, 10 employees statewide and half are licensing, half
are commissioned police enforcement officers. The agency's
budget is $1.75 million per year, but it does bring in licensing
receipts of which most goes back to the cities with the idea
that the cities will use it to help with law enforcement of
alcohol issues.
1:52:12 PM
MS. FRANKLIN continued that the initiative read that half of the
licensing fees would go back to a municipalities if its business
is located in a municipality. She described many similarities
in the way AS 17.38 is written as to the way Title 4 works. She
emphasized that it is a volunteer board so the bulk of the
alcohol work is performed by employees of the agency, and if it
is left with this agency it must be expanded. She offered that
it could be expanded in a fiscally responsible manner that is
less than creating an entire new 10-member agency. She
commented that there are no marijuana regulators waiting to be
placed on a board as this is a new substance to regulate versus
criminal enforcement. She maintains that the agency employees
are experts and have the most experience in issuing licenses,
enforcement, and licensees having issues who do not have
criminal intent but need a special kind of enforcement. She
described the ideal setup as two volunteer boards, both served
by this agency. She noted that the attorney general's office
reviewed concerns regarding conflict and determined there is not
a legal conflict in an agency serving both boards.
1:55:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that Ms. Franklin preferred
staffing performed within the agency even though it would result
in the hiring of additional people to regulate two different
substances. He further surmised that within the agency a board
should be created for marijuana that maintains the existing
board structure and population as the board for alcohol. He
questioned whether the official position of the Walker
administration is urging the legislature to do exactly as Ms.
Franklin described.
MS. FRANKLIN answered in the affirmative in that she met with
Governor Walker in December and outlined three options: option
A, it all stays with the ABC Board; option B, the hybrid version
she previously described; and option C, it all goes to a
marijuana control board and a separate agency. She stated that
Governor Walker did endorse the hybrid plan.
1:57:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his concern that there could
be both legal and illegal interests that would like to be
involved [in the marijuana industry], from the pharmaceutical to
the "mob." He remarked there are lawyers who could potentially
be involved advising both boards with conflicts of interest and
board members and staff with many ethical questions. He noted
that Alaska has a series of rules for the executive branch and
legislative branch that are not totally the same in this area.
He said he was not sure whether that will "fit the bill here"
and questioned what efforts the agency was making, or efforts
the agency suggested the legislature make to carefully obtain
expertise in the area of ethics.
MS. FRANKLIN responded that an assistant attorney general
referred her to the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, and also
cited AS 39.52.010(b), which read:
(b) The legislature declares that it is the policy of
the state, when a public employee is appointed to
serve on a state board or commission that the holding
of such offices does not constitute the holding of
incompatible offices unless expressly prohibited by
the Alaska Constitution, this chapter and any opinions
or decisions rendered under it, or another statute.
MS. FRANKLIN explained that holding incompatible offices is
prohibited. She highlighted that establishing that kind of
conflict is highly fact sensitive and the inquiry in that would
be a conflict of interest between an individual board member,
and not the entire board. She continued that it is not clear
whether the alcohol and marijuana industries are competing
industries. The Washington State Liquor Control Board regulates
both industries and she is not aware of a challenge to that as
being a conflict of interest. She advised that when Washington
passed its initiative that control was put with the Washington
State Liquor Control Board and it did not create the possibility
of a separate board. The Washington State Liquor Control Board
consists of three members who are state employees and it holds
three board meetings per week. She advised the Alaska ABC Board
holds five meetings per year and has substantial individual
business decisions to make at the meetings. She reiterated that
she is not aware whether it is an accepted fact that the
industries are competing or conflicting, and she imagined two
separate boards as a way to minimize the possibility of a
conflict of interest. The attorney working on this issue
advised that she does not believe anything in Alaska state law
would suggest there is a conflict of interest in an individual
agency licensing two types of industries.
2:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated it is not just a question of
conflict of interest, but the issue of "ethics" generally due to
such things as the necessity for background checks, necessity
for full disclosure of the people involved, training, and
liability. He opined there will be significant ethical issues
and he would like to know if there are national experts on these
subjects.
2:03:58 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE provided that the goal is to meet the intent of
the voters in implementation of the initiative, AS 17.38.110,
which read:
(a) A local government may prohibit the operation of
marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product
manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing
facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the
enactment of an ordinance or by a voter initiative.
(b) A local government may enact ordinances or
regulations not in conflict with this chapter or with
regulations enacted pursuant to this chapter,
governing the time, place, manner and number of
marijuana establishment operations. A local government
may establish civil penalties for violation of an
ordinance or regulation governing the time, place, and
manner of a marijuana establishment that may operate
in such local government.
(c) A local government may designate a local
regulatory authority that is responsible for
processing applications submitted for a registration
to operate a marijuana establishment within the
boundaries of the local government. The local
government may provide that the local regulatory
authority may issue such registrations should the
issuance by the local government become necessary
because of a failure by the board to adopt regulations
pursuant to AS 17.38.090 or to accept or process
applications in accordance with AS 17.38.100.
(d) A local government may establish procedures for
the issuance, suspension, and revocation of a
registration issued by the local government in
accordance with (f) of this section or (g) of this
section. These procedures shall be subject to all
requirements of AS 44.62, the Administrative Procedure
Act.
(e) A local government may establish a schedule of
annual operating, registration, and application fees
for marijuana establishments, provided, the
application fee shall only be due if an application is
submitted to a local government in accordance with (f)
of this section and a registration fee shall only be
due if a registration is issued by a local government
in accordance with (f) of this section or (g) of this
section ...
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned if there was concern regarding a
litigation challenge when it comes to Native Sovereignty on the
local control issue regarding a dry village. Many villages are
outside an organized municipality but still retain the right to
be dry. He further questioned if there could be a challenge and
whether it is something the legislature should consider during
implementation.
MS. FRANKLIN noted that she has responded to local governments
that "want to be on the substance in our local community" and
the answer is that AS 17.38.110 permits that except that nothing
in that act can change Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P.2d 494
(Alaska 1975). Ms. Franklin advises local governments, in terms
of alcohol local option law, that the best [local government]
can do in a local community, given Ravin v. Alaska, is called
Local Option 4 for municipalities, and Local Option 3 for
villages which is banning everything but possession. She
related that it has proven to be problematic in terms of
enforcement in those communities. She described approximately
38 communities on the books under Local Option 4 at this time.
The agency has heard over the years and in the stakeholders'
process that the option does not work well for them because it
permits a loophole for alcohol to be in that community in terms
of possession being legal but everything else being illegal, she
said. She opined that describes the status of marijuana in the
State of Alaska since Ravin, and to what some people call magic
marijuana where it is legal to have it but not legal to sell,
transport, manufacture, or purchase it. She said the way she
sees a challenge coming up to that is if there were a village or
municipality that attempted to outlaw it in some sort of a
lawsuit to test the Ravin decision. She extended that she did
not know that any municipal attorney would allow a village to
try to do that since the initiative says "you can be in it," but
also says nothing in the act is intended to change any of those
privileges granted through the Supreme Court under Ravin and Noy
v. State of Alaska, 83 P.3d 538, 542-43 (Alaska App. 2003)
cases. She said the most likely scenario is when the rules
around the local options are written, whether by the ABC Board,
a marijuana control board, or the legislature, that none of the
local options would be able to prohibit possession allowed by
the Ravin opinion.
2:09:40 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned if anyone has challenged the village
local dry rule "kind of on a Ravin analysis."
MS. FRANKLIN responded "yes," but did not know the name of the
case, but that it challenged under the same privacy rights, the
ability to prohibit a person from possessing alcohol. At the
time that Supreme Court case was decided, the Supreme Court said
alcohol is a very dangerous substance, of course "they can be in
it," she recalled.
2:11:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how the one ounce proviso synthesizes with
the sale by a licensee of edibles. She offered a scenario of a
dinner party and asked whether the marijuana must be thrown away
at the end of the dinner party if it all has not been eaten.
MS. FRANKLIN answered that her understanding, after speaking
with processers and manufacturers in Colorado is that if a
concentrate is removed from the definition of marijuana then
essentially edibles are removed. She described edibles as
processed and manufactured using marijuana concentrates.
Tourists in Colorado can purchase up to 1/4 ounce of flowers or
bud, and a resident can purchase 1 ounce at a time, she opined.
2:14:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that another issue Alaska will
be dealing with is tort liability in the owner and the supplier.
CHAIR LEDOUX directed that would need to be accomplished either
through legislation or the common law.
2:15:42 PM
KAREN O'KEEFE, Director, State Policies Department, Marijuana
Policy Project (MPP), advised that the Marijuana Policy Project
(MMP) is a national non-profit organization working with
advocates and legislatures to reform marijuana policies. She
stated that the measure received MPPs assistance with
campaigning, it provided funding, and also drafting assistance.
[On January 28, 2015], Dr. Tim Hinterberger submitted concerns
[located in committee packets] regarding the current draft of SB
30 and HB 79, and the previously discussed issue of affirmative
defense, and a few other concerns, she pointed out.
2:16:59 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:16 p.m. to 2:29 p.m. due to
technical difficulties.
2:29:25 PM
MS. O'KEEFE conveyed her understanding that the committees are
reviewing the issue of defense and replacing the "comprehensive
legal protection" of Measure 2. She recommends keeping the
language from Ballot Measure 2, AS 17.38.020 and AS 17.38.070 as
they are comprehensive legal protections for adults who are 21
and older, and for stores and their employees legally selling
marijuana. The [protections] include not only defenses from
criminal prosecution, but the conduct is exclusively lawful
under state law and municipal law. In addition to that issue,
she remarked, in the defense itself there is confusion as to the
scope of what possession is allowed. The initiative allows an
adult to possess six plants and all of the marijuana produced
from those plants. Another issue, she described, is "display"
as the draft of SB 30 penalizes not only public consumption but
also public display of marijuana. She stated that display is
one of the words included in Measure 2 as to what adults will be
allowed to do. It explicitly reads that public consumption is
prohibited, but display is not. Therefore, she surmised "that"
word should be stricken from AS 11.17.065. The next concern is
that a certain means of producing extract would be prohibited
which would be fine, she said, as long as manufacturers are
licensed, and complying with strict regulations, and are able to
safely manufacture these kind of extracts. For adults, she
noted, there is no objection to banning potentially dangerous
methods of home extraction that might cause an explosion. She
requested that in addition to vegetable glycerin, water be
exempted as water is a solvent and adults can safely extract
resins from marijuana using cold water with no chance of an
explosion. She commented that this allows adults to make edible
products in a safe manner in their home.
2:32:29 PM
MS. O'KEEFE described the next issue within Dr. Hinterberger's
letter as "hermanizing" hashish and marijuana. Currently, SB
30, AS 11.71.190(1)(b) reads "marijuana, hashish, hash oil, or
hashish oil are schedule VIA controlled substances." She
indicated that the language suggests hashish and hash oil are
separate from marijuana; however, Measure 2's definition of
marijuana includes concentrates and resins and thereby includes
hash. She suggested striking the word "hash" everywhere as it
is included in marijuana, or "alternately, it could read
marijuana including hashish, hash oil and so forth is a
controlled substance." She pointed out that this language would
make it clear that they are not meant to be separate because it
is part of the definition of marijuana. The last concern, she
remarked, is the issue of open containers. Senate Bill 30
proposes penalizing individuals with marijuana in a container
that had been opened, or paraphernalia if it appears to have
been used in a vehicle. She said that for many people marijuana
is a medicine and SB 30 allows many locations to ban [products]
with marijuana. For example, a seriously ill patient may live
at a nursing home that does not allow marijuana use at its
facility, should the provision pass they could not go into a
parked car and use marijuana when no driver is present. She
opined it is an unnecessary prohibition and unnecessarily broad
and it should be revised or removed completely. In addition,
she provided, there are two exceptions under the alcohol
statute, use in a bus or limousine, and she urged [that SB 30]
be revised to match the alcohol statute. Ms. O'Keefe noted that
marijuana does not have to be smoked so all of the broad
prohibitions regarding open container would apply, and not only
for adult recreational users but also to patients.
2:35:30 PM
SENATOR COGHILL put forward that the legislature has struggled
with testing for impaired driving as public safely has been one
of the harder issue to get to and he advised that open container
was an attempt to go down that road. He questioned how she
viewed that issue.
MS. O'KEEFE agreed with the importance that it remain unlawful
for adults to drive while under the influence of marijuana or
any other substance. She suggested more training for law
enforcement officers for drug recognition experts in order to
recognize signs of being impaired by marijuana. She urged the
committee to not be overly broad as to encompass benign activity
and especially people who are seriously ill.
2:36:45 PM
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that the legislature is sympathetic to
the use of medicinal marijuana, and that edibles will be harder
to detect than the smell of marijuana smoke. He asked whether
there is any manner edible consumption could be detected without
a sobriety walking test.
MS. O'KEEFE reiterated that training law enforcement is the best
way of [detecting impairment]. She stated that an individual
consuming an edible can be under the influence for many hours so
the chances of a law enforcement officer finding an open
container indicating they consumed an edible product in the car
isn't the most effective manner. She indicated that many people
highly impaired by marijuana are not associated with risk taking
so hopeful most would not be inclined to drive in the first
place. She opined there is a widening amount of training in law
enforcement in order to recognize when a person is under the
influence of anything, and they have specific protocols for
testing. She offered that Paul Armentano [Deputy Director,
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws] is an
expert on the driving issue and he would be an appropriate
person to expand on this law.
SENATOR COGHILL requested she forward the recommendation to the
committee chairs with a note as the legislature needs to look
down that road.
2:38:55 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned if there is a level of THC
everyone can agree under which a person is intoxicated.
MS. O'KEEFE advised that, unfortunately, there is not a specific
level of THC, as even the federal government's transportation
board has said there is no magic number. However, regular
marijuana users can have a very high level of THC and not be
impaired. "You have to rely on the field roadside sobriety type
tests," she said.
2:40:07 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE offered that his question relates to the
chemistry of hash oil extraction and questioned whether any
state legislature has defined the specific process by what is
not allowed, rather than getting specific on the process. For
example, he offered, only non-hydrocarbon based extraction
methods are permitted.
MS. O'KEEFE advised that the exception for vegetable glycerin is
similar to the language used in Oregon's measure that was
approved by voters. She stated she would "ask around" to
determine if other states list the methods of extraction that
are exempted from the prohibition at one's home.
SENATOR MICCICHE further questioned whether the risk is due to
hydrocarbons used in extractions.
MS. O'KEEFE deferred Senator Micciche's question to the experts,
including Bruce Schulte [Coalition for Responsible Cannabis
Legislation]. She related her understanding that the risk is
related to fumes produced. For example, she pointed out,
anything producing fumes is dangerous as with an alcohol based
butane solvent, but there will be no fumes when the cold water
process or vegetable glycerin process is used.
2:42:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned if there were other
countries or jurisdictions allowing a certain amount of
marijuana use and, he surmised, the legislature can either look
at subject matters to begin with or jurisdictions. When
reviewing jurisdictions it can be determined how the issue was
framed and address them.
MS. O'KEEFE responded that the only country that has completely
made adult marijuana use and production legal is Uruguay, South
America and, unfortunately, she noted, it is as new as
Washington and Colorado's law. The system is not up and running
and there appears to be concern as to how it done and how
realistic it is. The Netherlands, since the 1970s, has had
marijuana stores which are de facto legal as it is prohibited
within the law, and the production of marijuana is still
illegal. She described this system as imperfect but there are
lessons to be learned in how they approach things.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that the committees be
informed on other jurisdictions and their progress in this area
because whether it is civil or common law jurisdiction, if a
common problem is being addressed it would be helpful to have
the information.
2:45:48 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned Bruce Schulte as to the challenge of
the extraction process of hash oil and pondered if a broader
definition might be more helpful eliminating the risk of harmful
or risky extraction methods. He surmised that all of the more
dangerous processes are hydrocarbon based and the legislature
does not know what future processes will look like. He asked
whether the legislature should limit it to defining it or should
hydrocarbon based extraction methods be eliminated.
2:46:43 PM
BRUCE SCHULTE, Spokesman, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis
Legislation, advised he is a spokesman for the Coalition for
Responsible Cannabis Legislation and that he submitted a packet
of material to the committees in which the coalition attempted
to clarify the products and processes related to marijuana. He
said the materials include home extraction using butane and that
butane hash oil was one of them. He described the problem being
that hash oil is not volatile, but the process using butane is
volatile, as is acetylene, helium and other gases. He surmised
that once the regulated industry is set up the practice of
producing hash oil at home using butane will largely disappear.
He opined this would happen when commercial businesses are
allowed to produce hash oil and other extracts in a suitable
environment using close loop systems, trained personnel, and
explosion proof lighting. He pointed to backyard stills at the
end of alcohol prohibition in that after a period of time it was
not practical because a cheaper and better product could be
purchased in a store. He related that this is not a perfect
answer to this concern but he hoped that the practice will
diminish.
SENATOR MICCICHE advised that his question was not answered in
that he is looking to eliminate that extraction process, but he
does support another process that would be safer.
MR. SCHULTE questioned if Senator Micciche was referring
specifically to home use or commercial production.
SENATOR MICCICHE offered that if the hydrocarbon based
extraction process is unnecessarily risky and there are other
processes, he would favor them.
MR. SCHULTE expanded that in a commercial environment there
would be little reason for a business to extract hash oil using
butane as it is not cost effective, not safe or efficient, and
is not in any manner a preferred method. He described closed
loop systems where the gases are highly self-contained and
recaptured for reuse, and some do not include butane at all.
2:49:55 PM
MR. SCHULTE reiterated concern regarding the effort to treat
hash, hash oil, and edibles, separately [from marijuana]. The
coalition believes the problem in this area is that terms were
misleading or unfamiliar. He commented that his board
previously submitted a document, "Marijuana Products Extracts,
Derivatives and Regulations" in which the plant is described,
its component parts, the manner in which parts of the cannabis
plant are used and processed, and defines concentrates and
derivatives.
2:52:43 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, in responding to Representative Gruenberg,
stated that he had not heard anything that would change the
testimony offered by Tracey Wollenberg, yesterday. He noted
that the agency's major concern is being addressed by the
rewrite which he would like to review in order to get into the
more technical problems that might arise. The agency's major
concern is the manner in which defense was structured in not
being consistent with the initiative or the Alaska State
Constitution, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted there will be other issues such
as warranties, food and drug, and others and asked if Mr.
Steiner had any comments.
MR. STEINER responded that with regard to regulations, it is not
something the agency would specifically look into as the agency
is not involved. He said the agency limits itself to review of
the criminal aspect and some policy issues surrounding how a
particular concern is addressed as it relates to criminal
practice.
KACI SCHROEDER, AAG, Criminal Division, Office of the Attorney
General, Department of Law, in responding to Representative
Gruenberg, stated that she concurs with Mr. Steiner in that
there was nothing heard today that would change the testimony
previously provided to the committee.
[HB 78 was held over.]
2:56:14 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB30 Written Testimony CRCL.pdf |
SJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB30 Written Testimony Mat-Su Boro.pdf |
SJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB30 Written Testimony Municipal Attorneys Legal Memo.pdf |
SJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB30 Testimony Dr Hinterberger.pdf |
SJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB30 Committee Material Article Pediatric Academy.pdf |
SJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB30 Committee Material Title 11 Definitions.pdf |
SJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |