Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/05/2015 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 5, 2015
9:03 a.m.
9:03:13 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Jordan Shilling, Staff, Senator John Coghill; Chuck Kopp,
Staff, Senator Peter Micciche; Richard Svobodny, Deputy
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Kaci Schroeder, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Nancy Meade, General Counsel,
Alaska Court System.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Quinlan Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; Dennis Casanovas, Major,
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety.
SUMMARY
SB 30 MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
SB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
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."
9:04:30 AM
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, continued to
discuss the Sectional Analysis for bill version F (copy on
file). He began with Section 53: Definitions.
Establishes the definition for "marijuana" as defined
in the ballot initiative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there was some concern
regarding the Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content in various
types of marijuana, and the THC content level in a
marijuana leaf versus extract. She remarked that there may
be a difference between a substance definition versus a
scientific definition of marijuana. She asked for more
information about discussion of the definition of
marijuana. Mr. Shilling replied with an explanation of the
definition and how it was constructed. He stated that the
current definition of marijuana included concentrates that
were not traditionally "marijuana." It included more than
the plant material. The current definition included hash,
hash oil, and other extracts. He stated that one could
possess up to one ounce of hash, under the current
definition. He remarked that content of THC was not
equitable within the current definition. He shared that
there were some conversations in the Senate Judiciary
Committee that removed some words from the definition. He
noted that the word "salt" was removed from the voter
approved definition. There was some question about the
makeup of a "marijuana salt." The initiative sponsors
shared that they did not understand why the definition
included "marijuana salt", because they could not identify
a "marijuana salt." He looked at line 21, and shared that
there was discussion regarding a comma following the word,
"oil." He stated that there was some contention about
whether the comma would inadvertently exclude "marijuana
concentrate oil", rather than oil derived from the stock of
the plant. He stated that Mr. Kopp could further explain
the impact of the comma.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 37, line 31 of the bill.
She shared that the comma was currently litigated in
Colorado. She asked for further explanation regarding the
punctuation and grammar.
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, explained that
if the comma, it would speak specifically to the oil or
cake from the seeds of the plant. If the comma remained, it
spoke to oil standing alone that could come from any part
of the plant. The oil could be potent, depending on where
on the plant it was derived.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if it was safer or less safe for
children to keep the comma in the legislation. He wondered
if there would be more or fewer concentrates in the state.
Mr. Kopp replied that removal of the comma gave the state
better authority to regulate the plant on its various
degrees of potency.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that opposition to the
distribution of a THC or marijuana product via an oil
conducted from the substance also reflected opposition to
removing the comma. Mr. Kopp agreed.
9:10:57 AM
AT EASE
9:12:32 AM
RECONVENED
9:12:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the Department of Law would
be available to discuss the comma at a later date.
Mr. Shilling looked at Section 54:
Defines "criminal negligence", "deliver", "established
village", "knowingly", "manufacture", "marijuana
concentrate", "public place" and "usable marijuana."
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 38 line 13, and asked for
more information about "public place." She recalled a
question from Senator Dunleavy regarding the federal
description of "public place", and whether the consumption
or use of marijuana inside a federal park would be
inconsistent with Alaska state law. Mr. Shilling deferred
to the Department of Law. He opined that the federal land
would fall under federal law.
Mr. Kopp furthered that there weapons laws and knife laws
were deferred to the state from the federal government. He
stated that someone from the large land-holding entities
should speak to the issue of marijuana use on their lands.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that there was a memo that
provided guidance to federal prosecutors regarding federal
enforcements in the states that legalized marijuana. As of
August 29, 2013, there was a list of eight items. Number 8
was preventing marijuana use on federal property.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the specific reference.
Vice-Chair Micciche looked at a document from Department of
Law dated March 3, 2015. He stated that the supremacy
clause may cause the state law to be stricken. The memo
announced that if state law satisfied the items, that the
law would likely stand. He listed the eight items:
Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from
going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;
Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states
where it is legal under state law in some form to
other states;
Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from
being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking
of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the
cultivation and distribution of marijuana;
Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of
other adverse public health consequences associated
with marijuana use;
Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands
and the accompanying public safety and environmental
dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal
property.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there would be a discussion
on the issue at a later time.
9:17:44 AM
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss Section 54.
Mr. Kopp looked at Section 103:
AS 28.35.029(a). Open container.
Provides that a person may not drive a motor vehicle
when there is an open marijuana container in the
passenger compartment with the exceptions provided
below (b.)
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 60, line 29, Section 103,
and announced that Mr. Kopp was speaking to that location
in the legislation.
Mr. Kopp looked at Section 105:
AS 28.35.029(c). Open container.
Defines "open marijuana container" as a receptacle
that contains marijuana, is open or has a broken seal
and there is evidence marijuana has been consumed in
the vehicle.
Senator Bishop asked for more information regarding the
"open container", specifically on a charter bus. Mr. Kopp
responded that one could have an open container on a
charter bus with 12 or more passengers.
Senator Olson queried the definition of "motor vehicle." He
specifically wondered if four-wheelers and other small off-
road vehicles were identified as motor vehicles. Mr. Kopp
responded that the definition was on line 8, page 61 of the
bill, which stated that an open container may be on a motor
driven cycle. He stated that the definition was in current
law since the 1980s. The legislature had never prescribed a
further restriction.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Sections 126 and 127. Mr. Kopp
addressed the sections:
AS 29.10.200; AS 29.35. Limitation of home rule
powers. Municipal powers and duties.
Provides the right to limit marijuana to the state and
municipalities cannot enact or enforce an ordinance
inconsistent with 17.38, except as specifically
provided by state statute. The section applies to home
rule and general law municipalities.
9:23:57 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there were some resources
on line that could discuss some items as related to the
sectional analysis.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if it was best to include
"ATVs" in the definition of "motor driven cycles." Mr. Kopp
replied that an ATV was already a motor driven cycle. He
agreed to look further into the definition under the law.
He remarked that marijuana would be allowed on a motor
driven cycle, it must be enclosed in another container.
9:26:04 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 88 of the legislation.
Mr. Kopp looked at Sections 158, 159, and 160:
Repeals the enumerated statutes
Applicability provisions.
Provides for an immediate effective date.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that the initiative had a
separation clause. She wondered if the act required a
severability clause. Mr. Kopp deferred to the Department of
Law, but opined that it would not be required in the
legislation.
9:28:18 AM
AT EASE
9:29:00 AM
RECONVENED
9:29:10 AM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, introduced himself.
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, introduced herself.
Mr. Svobodny explained that he and Ms. Schroeder would
divide their testimony. He would address some of the
federal issues. He furthered that Ms. Schroeder would
present a list of policy questions, that should be
addressed by the legislature. He began with the oath of
office. He stated that the oath was not restricted to
legislators, because if also included cabinet members, the
governor, and the judges. With the oath, the state official
swears to uphold the constitution of the United States; and
to uphold the constitution of the State of Alaska; and to
faithfully discharge the duties. The oath did not say that
it was the responsibility to uphold individual laws of the
federal government. There was no federal constitution
provision that dealt with marijuana. He shared that there
was an interpretation of the Alaska constitution's right of
privacy, which related to marijuana.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the limit of protected illegal
activity under the privacy laws. Mr. Svobodny asked for
clarification.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered what other types of illegal
activities were protected under the privacy clause. Mr.
Svobodny replied that he could not answer that question. He
stated that there was no legislative history for regulating
what a person can do in their own home.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered what types of child protection
measures should be taken, while facing possible second-hand
marijuana inhalation. Mr. Svobodny replied that the court
would examine the social values in protecting the use of
marijuana in the home; and public safety reasons for
restricting marijuana smoking with children in the house.
The legislature had findings related to the changes in
marijuana use from 1975 and 2006 for the 20-fold increase
in the amount of THC and the effects on youth in Alaska. He
felt the legislative history supported regulating marijuana
in locations with children.
9:37:50 AM
Co-Chair Kelly did not know how limitations in the privacy
clause. He shared that the establishment of the privacy
clause which declared that the legislature shall implement
the section. He felt that the courts never recognized the
legislature implementation, and rather the courts only
acknowledged the broad right to privacy applied to whatever
the courts deemed appropriate. He felt that the courts
consistently declined the legislature's attempts at
implementing the privacy clause.
Mr. Svobodny shared that there was a question about
litigation immunity for members of the legislature. He
stressed that there was no immunity from being sued. The
court dismisses lawsuits after the member of the
legislature declares immunity. He shared that there were
very strong Alaska cases that dealt with immunity for the
legislature.
9:42:31 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that she submitted a series of
questions from Alaskans that were against the initiative.
She felt that a legislator who voted on the issue could be
held liable. She stated that there was a concern with the
assertion that the initiative did not require any
individual or entity to violate federal law, or exempt any
individual or entity from federal law. She hoped that the
discussion would move in that direction.
Mr. Svobodny announced that federal law would still be
enforced, regardless of the legislation.
9:47:44 AM
Co-Chair Kelly stressed that marijuana was still illegal on
the federal level.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that the committee was
concerned with the investment of time and money on
litigation to obtain the right to produce and distribute
marijuana. Mr. Svobodny stated that the supremacy clause
was part of the United States Constitution. He shared that
each state agreed that conflicts between state and federal
law would allow for the federal law to trump the state law.
Senator Bishop surmised that, under the supremacy clause,
the state could move forward in attempting to respect the
initiative's intent. He also understood that the
legislature could not be held liable under the supremacy
clause. Mr. Svobodny agreed.
Senator Bishop surmised that the federal government could
supersede the state law. Mr. Svobodny replied that the
federal government could prosecute an individual for a
violation of the federal laws that related to marijuana.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if Mr. Svobodny understood why
some Alaskans were confused by this issue. Mr. Svobodny
replied in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy felt that the law was subjective. Mr.
Svobodny replied that he did not understand the question.
9:53:03 AM
Senator Dunleavy remarked that the enforcement of the law
was subjective, because it seemed to violate federal law.
He remarked that Alaska should take advantage of the lack
of enforcement by the federal government, and wanted to
extend it to other aspects of federal overreach like the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He referred to page
3 of the memo dated March 3, 2015, which stated that one
could never guarantee the federal government's actions. He
remarked that individuals in Washington were recently
prosecuted for growing medical marijuana. Mr. Svobodny
agreed.
Senator Dunleavy felt that "it was a guessing game." Mr.
Svobodny indicated uncertainty.
Senator Dunleavy stressed that the issue was either
subjective or objective. Mr. Svobodny replied that the
issue was not guaranteed. He explained that medical
marijuana was allowed under Alaska law since 1998, and he
was not aware of any person that had been prosecuted under
federal law Alaska's medical marijuana statutes.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the concept was called
"prosecutorial discretion." Mr. Svobodny responded in the
affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy stated that "prosecutorial discretion" was
subjective. Mr. Svobodny agreed.
Senator Dunleavy looked at the final paragraph of the memo,
and felt that the state would be in violation of federal
law. He wondered if the "law" referred to what was on
paper, or rather the subjective application of the law. Mr.
Svobodny responded that he was referring to what was passed
by initiative, by the legislature, or interpreted by the
courts either in the state or on the federal level.
Senator Dunleavy restated that it would be a subjective
application.
9:57:38 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the standing of the guidance.
He wondered if the guidance had any legal standing. Mr.
Svobodny replied that a new administration may change the
guidance.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the guidance was similar to
other models. He asked if the current guidance had standing
with the current attorney general. Mr. Svobodny responded
that the current attorney generals across the country would
follow the guidance.
Vice-Chair Micciche shared that he was against all federal
overreach, even on laws of which disagreed. He was not a
supporter of the initiative. He shared that the state was
rarely provided a memo that defined the areas which the
federal government would protect. He looked at page 3, and
noted that the federal government might choose to enforce
the supremacy clause, if state efforts were not
sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth.
He felt that the state was given a rare opportunity to
satisfy the eight outlines, as long as the memo stands.
Mr. Svobodny could not determine if that statement was true
or false. He explained that he had used the Cole Memo as a
devise to show that one could argue the meaning of the
supremacy clause.
10:03:40 AM
Co-Chair Kelly felt that the federal government would not
prosecute someone that was smoking marijuana in their
living room. The federal government may attempt to add
marijuana possession onto another federal violation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there was a concern about
the implementation of the production and sale of marijuana.
She stressed that the initiative was law. She wanted to
define and protect Alaskans inside the existing body of
law. She stressed that the federal government had the
ability to use, enforce, and defend its own laws.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that marijuana users were
protected, but marijuana producers and sellers could face
federal prosecution. Mr. Svobodny agreed/
Mr. Svobodny looked at Article 11, of the Alaska State
Constitution. Article 11 referred to initiatives. He shared
that in 1998, there was a medical marijuana initiative
passed. There were substantive legislative changes.
10:14:22 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the memo from James Cole was
intended to say that it encompassed all aspects of federal
law as it pertains to marijuana. Mr. Svobodny replied that
the memo was designed to inform states that the states
activities would not result in enforcement.
Senator Dunleavy wondered what would occur if the
legislation failed to pass.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for a question restatement.
Senator Dunleavy wondered what would occur if the bill
passed, but the fiscal note were removed.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that the federal government
was not alone in "liberty and justice issues." He felt that
the state was not completely innocent either in that
respect. He felt that there still needed to be a warning to
Alaskans about possible federal prosecution.
Ms. Schroeder highlighted some proposed policy decisions.
She looked at the issue of promoting contraband.
10:20:53 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was a memo that
outlined the information about potential conflicts and
policy calls. Ms. Schroeder agreed to provide that
information.
Ms. Schroeder stated that possession of marijuana within
500 feet of a school was currently a Class C felony. There
was no similar provision for alcohol, so the question was
whether that issue should be dealt in a different manner.
Mr. Svobodny stated that the Department of Law needed to
determine whether the state would lose money by changing
that part of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there were several
sections that superseded several aspects of state law. Mr.
Svobodny replied that he had concern with the word,
"notwithstanding."
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the language removed some
sensitivity, by placing the law above all other laws in
statute. Ms. Schroeder stated that the issue was dealt with
on page 14 of the bill.
Ms. Schroeder addressed the local option issue. She
explained that the initiative allowed certain local
government to opt-out of marijuana establishments in order
to prevent those establishments from operating within the
communities. The definition of "local government" in the
initiative was somewhat problematic, because if left of
villages. The legislation faced that issue by incorporating
established villages into the opt-out provision.
Co-Chair Kelly queried the page number. Ms. Schroeder
replied that it was on page 35.
10:26:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how the initiative would deal with
the unincorporated villages to impose or change laws in the
communities. Ms. Schroeder replied that the language in the
bill was similar to the alcohol provision, so the
legislature already allowed for the communities to make
their own decisions.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if the initiative mandated that the
opt-out decision could only be determined by a vote of the
people. Ms. Schroeder replied that the initiative states
that the local communities have the opportunity to opt out.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if there was any other place in
state law that required that a community have an election,
rather than using their elected individuals to create local
ordinances. Mr. Svobodny replied that he did not know the
answer, and may not understand the question.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if the communities could only opt
out through a vote of the people. He also asked if there
were other state laws that required that communities only
use a vote of the people to enact or remove law, rather
than through their elected officials. Mr. Svobodny agreed
to provide that information.
Co-Chair Kelly stressed that the issue was a local option.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the initiative specifically
required communities to vote to opt into something. She
stressed that the unincorporated communities normally
provided grievances to the legislature. She specifically
wondered if those unincorporated communities to opt out on
their behalf. Mr. Svobodny agreed to provide that
information.
10:33:22 AM
Ms. Schroeder remarked that there was some concern
regarding whether the hash oil should be treated
differently that the leafy marijuana substance. She shared
that the THC content would be different in each substance.
She felt that the legislature should also take into
consideration how the substances should be weighed.
Ms. Schroeder announced that the initiative allowed a
person to have six plants would be well over an ounce of
marijuana, and there was no way for law enforcement to
determine where the leaves came from.
Ms. Schroeder shared that the Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) appeared in the bill. Other states provided allowable
thresholds in the human body similar to alcohol.
10:38:09 AM
Senator Bishop wondered if someone could have marijuana on
an aircraft that stops in a dry village. Ms. Schroeder
replied that a person was allowed one ounce of marijuana in
public. She felt that the person would be protected, as
long as they remained on the plane. Once they leave the
aircraft and move through the airport, they could be
prosecuted for importing marijuana.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that a federal agent could
prosecute that person on the aircraft. Ms. Schroeder
agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 8, line 31, and wondered
if there was a follow up regarding the phrase "public
place." Mr. Svobodny replied that the "public place"
definition was in criminal statute. He opined that the
retail floor of Nordstrom would be a "public place", and
the restrooms would also be a public place. He felt that
there may never be a definition that all would agree upon.
The bill uses the language that had been in statute since
1978.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 61, line 8, regarding the
open container law in different kinds of motorized vehicles
like ATVs.
Senator Olson stated that his question was answered.
10:43:32 AM
Senator Bishop wondered if "motorcycle driven" only
referred to two wheels. Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that
it said "motor driven cycle."
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the transportation in rural
Alaska was in the marijuana container section. Mr. Svobodny
replied that he would provide information at a later date.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at the severability clause. She
remarked that those who voted for the initiative were
concerned about how the bill and various aspects would take
effect. Mr. Svobodny replied that there were general
clauses, and agreed to provide further information.
Co-Chair Kelly looked at an article about a "weed bus" in
Seattle. It was a tour that allowed people to smoke
marijuana in the bus. He asked how this legislation would
impact a possible weed bus industry in the state. Mr.
Svobodny replied that the issue was more directed toward
regulation.
Senator Bishop asked if the legislation addressed marijuana
on boats. Mr. Svobodny responded that it may be in the
legislation.
Senator Dunleavy announced that boats were included in the
legislation under "watercrafts."
10:47:59 AM
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if there could be a boat tour that
would provide marijuana for passengers. Mr. Svobodny
responded that it would be a regulatory issue.
Co-Chair Kelly felt that there were dangerous aspects of
the legislation, which deal with more than the
decriminalization of marijuana. He felt that there were
health and safety issues that should be addressed within
the legislation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt that a pharmacist testimony
regarding the chemical composite would be helpful to moving
the conversation forward. She remarked that the overall
approach to the legislation was the final consideration.
She stated that there over 160 sections of Alaska law in
the current bill. Mr. Svobodny replied that he would
consider what it would take to reduce the size of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered what would happen if individual
law agencies were left with what the public had
recommended. Mr. Svobodny replied that the regulation
aspect of the initiative would be addressed in a regulatory
bill.
10:57:27 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked if there was a possibility that the
executive in the state would rely on prosecutorial
discretion, and inform public safety officials to not
respond to a marijuana issue. Mr. Svobodny responded that
he wanted to share an example. He announced that he did not
want to say who he would prosecute and who he would not
prosecute.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the state executive respond
exactly how the federal government was responding to the
marijuana issue. Mr. Svobodny replied that the people voted
for the initiative, in part, because of the people that
were in jail for marijuana possession. He shared that the
number of people in jail for strictly marijuana possession
was zero. He shared that there were approximately four
people in jail for the next step up from marijuana
possession. He stressed that prosecutors were currently
using their discretion, and that discretion was used since
the legislature last changed the marijuana laws in 2006.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked that amendments be submitted to
her office by Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 12noon. She
announced that public testimony would not be taken before
Wednesday, March 11 at 1:30pm.
11:02:01 AM
RECESSED
1:37:11 PM
RECONVENED
1:38:19 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), looked
at page 19, line 27 regarding bail release for violations.
He stated that the section allowed the court to order the
condition of pretrial release. He stated that bail releases
such as blood and urine require probable cause, and are
bound to violate the constitution. He felt that it was
worth consideration for changes. He also expressed concern
on page 32, line 27, which was the section defining
marijuana misconduct in the third degree. He stated that
the section prohibited an individual under the age of 21
into entering a premises, except at the direction of a
peace officer. He felt that an exception like alcohol
should be considered that allowed someone as a function of
their employment to go on premises, for example a plumber
or delivery person. He also suggested an exception for
individuals under 21 who are with their parent or legal
guardian.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the remainder of the bill
would be enough, and whether it was possible to defend a
person who would be accused of a crime. Mr. Steiner replied
that the bill generally followed the intent of the
initiative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was a sufficient
definition of the word, "marijuana." Mr. Steiner felt that
the discussion of the definition was mostly related to
marijuana concentrate.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there was discussion
regarding how the law would supersede laws related to
school drug-free zones. Mr. Steiner replied that there may
be an issue, if someone lived within that zone.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was any additional
information about the Public Defender Agency fiscal note.
Mr. Steiner responded that there would be no anticipated
impact on the agency.
1:46:09 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stressed
that the Court System was neutral on the legislation. She
looked at page 29, line 16 of the bill. The section held
the language that outlined the criminalization of
marijuana. She looked at page 33, lines 23 through 25,
which dealt with bail forfeiture schedules.
Ms. Meade looked at page 35, lines 6 through 9, which
referred to court records of violations by minors
confidential.
1:54:14 PM
DENNIS CASANOVAS, MAJOR, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), addressed the issue
of the definition of "marijuana." He looked at page 37,
Section 53, line 21. He understood that the word oil and
the comma related to it would make the oil not a component
of marijuana. He remarked that the bill also addressed the
resins from the plant. He felt that law enforcement would
find it difficult to distinguish the resins and the
concentrates generated from the plant, when the word "oil"
was not considered part of "marijuana." He also looked at
page 88 of the bill, Section 158, line 7, which addressed
sections of the current statutes that would be removed. One
of those statutes was AS 11.71.160(f1), which was the word
"hashish." He also looked that the (f2), which was
currently "hash oil or hashish oil." It was proposed that
the two sections of statute, which classify the
concentrates as schedule 3A, be removed. He pointed out
that (f3) was not removed from statute. He shared that (f3)
was "tetrahydrocannabinols" (THC), which was the primary
psychoactive ingredient of a cannabis plant. He shared that
the definition in ballot measure 2, the proposed bill, and
current statutes held different definitions of marijuana.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked that the remarks be sent to her
office. Mr. Casanovas agreed to provide that information.
1:58:51 PM
Mr. Casanovas looked at page 38, lines 4 through 10. He was
concerned about the definition of "manufacturer." He felt
that the word, "cultivation" should be included in the
Section. He remarked that cultivation was addressed in the
medical use section. He urged the committee to include
"cultivation" in the definition of the word "manufacturer."
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for a restatement of the line
numbers that were cause for concern. Mr. Casanovas replied
that he referred to page 25, Section 43, line 22.
Mr. Casanovas looked at pages 60 and 61. He remarked that
there was some testimony about Sections 103, 104, and 105
as it pertains to an open marijuana container. He remarked
that he did not see a description of where a person would
be expected to transport live marijuana plants. Keeping in
mind that the possession of marijuana plants in public
could be six plants, and potentially may not be the best
for immediate smoking. He expressed concern regarding the
live plants versus the open marijuana container and
accessories.
2:03:23 PM
Mr. Casanovas felt that the bill focused on moving
marijuana from a controlled substance classification to a
title 17 substance. He stressed that many statutes would be
affected, and would affect many regulations. He proposed
that there were a fair number of regulations, and policy
and procedure would need to be refined to include the word,
"marijuana."
Mr. Casanovas addressed the issue of moving marijuana
offenses to five separate categories. He remarked that
there were no provisions for people that violate in large
offenses. He remarked that an unlicensed or unregistered
cultivator could sell high quantities of marijuana. He
suggested that
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted more information about the comma
on page 37, line 16. Ms. Schroeder replied that the comma
after oil created an argument that oil should not be
included in the definition of the word, "marijuana." It
makes oil look like a standalone substance. It could be
considered a marijuana concentrate. She suggested further
definition of the definition of "concentrate."
SB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
2:12:32 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB30 Leg Legal - Fed Enforcement Memo and 2-14-14 and 8-29-13 Cole Memos.pdf |
SFIN 3/5/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB30 Dept of Law - Supremacy Clause Letter and 6-29-11 Cole Memo.pdf |
SFIN 3/5/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |