Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/10/2015 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| 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 10, 2015
1:35 p.m.
1:35:46 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.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 Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Kaci Schroeder, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Nancy Mead, General Counsel,
Alaska Court System; Cynthia Franklin, Executive Director,
Alcohol Beverage Control Board.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tracey Wollenberg, Director, Public Defender Agency; Major
Dennis Casanovas, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety; Orin Dym, Forensic Laboratory Manager,
Department of Public Safety.
SUMMARY
SB 30 MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
CSSB 30(FIN) 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."
1:36:43 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was continued objection
to the adoption of the proposed committee substitute for SB
30, Work Draft 29-LS0231\X (Martin, 3/9/15).
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION from the previous
day. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
1:37:46 PM
AT EASE
1:38:36 PM
RECONVENED
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, addressed questions from the
March 5, 2015 hearing. She explained that the issue of
contraband had been discussed in previous versions of the
bill but was not addressed in the current version before
the committee. She said that if marijuana were placed back
into the controlled substances schedule, it would be a
class C felony to bring marijuana into a correctional
facility in the state. She relayed that the question before
the committee in addressing the issue was whether the
penalty should be lowered to make bringing marijuana into a
correctional facility a class A misdemeanor, and put it on
par with tobacco.
1:39:39 PM
Ms. Schroeder referred to Page 12, line 6 of SB 30,
regarding the definition of marijuana. She explained that
version X removed the comma after the word "oil," and read:
"marijuana" means all parts of the plant of the
genus cannabis whether growing of not, the seeds
thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the
plant, and every compound, manufacture, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or
its resin, including marijuana concentrate;
"marijuana" does not include fiber produced from the
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant,
sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of
germination, or the weight of any other ingredient
combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral
administrations, food, drink, or other products;
Ms. Schroeder elucidated that the removal of the comma,
combined with hashish and hash oil being moved into the
same schedule as marijuana, provided clarity for law
enforcement as to how they should treat hash oil and
hashish.
1:40:36 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the current version of the
bill was more consistent with the intent of the initiative.
Ms. Schroeder replied that she could not speculate on the
intent of the initiative, but that it was consistent with
testimony that had been provided in previous committees.
1:41:02 PM
Ms. Schroeder referred to Page 16, line 25, which was
Section 26 of the bill. She shared that the section would
make it a violation for a marijuana establishment to sell
or provide marijuana to a person under 21, and also
included parameters for conduct with persons under 21 years
of age. She relayed that violators could be fined from $250
to $500; it was a class A misdemeanor to provide marijuana
to a person under 21 years of age, and a class C felony if
done twice within a 5 year span.
1:42:04 PM
Ms. Schroeder stated that the bill was reestablishing
possession limits, which could potentially lead to
litigation.
1:42:32 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the limits that were
being referred to was the establishment of 16 ounces for
personal possession.
Ms. Schroeder replied that the bill had 16 ounces as the
threshold for a felony, anything over an ounce would be a
class A or B misdemeanor.
1:43:02 PM
Senator Hoffman asked whether an unorganized borough could
unilaterally opt out of the marijuana law and if a
provision could be added to the legislation that allowed
each community within the unorganized areas of the state to
opt back in at their discretion.
Ms. Schroeder noted that the question regarded civil law.
She had forwarded the question to the civil division, which
would provide and answer in a timely manner.
1:44:03 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked what would happen if no action were
to be taken on CSSB 30, or another related bill.
Ms. Schroeder responded that chaos in the streets was not
expected. She hoped that legislation would bring further
clarity and definition to the issue. She related that the
Department of Law would be able to maintain public safety
in the absence of CSSB 30, but that anarchy was not
expected. She said that she could not speak to the
regulatory context, but believed that those bills should be
defined.
Senator Dunleavy understood that the law would default to
the initiative.
Ms. Schroeder replied in the affirmative.
1:45:31 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche requested examples of where non-
applicability was used in criminal law in the state.
Ms. Schroeder cited the bill; Page 9, section 10, which
offered a version of a non-applicability clause.
1:46:16 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed attention to a memorandum from
the Division of Legislative Legal and Research Services
dated March 6, 2015, which pointed out that the non-
applicability clause did not apply when people were using a
product consistent with the initiative. She added that it
would be a jurisdictional issue.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the version of the
applicability clause from Section 10.
Ms. Schroeder believed that it was the section of law
related to prescriptions and pharmaceutical drugs; a
pharmacist acting in the course of their job would not
violate the drug offense statutes.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if the department was comfortable
with Section 10.
Ms. Schroeder replied yes.
1:47:35 PM
Senator Dunleavy understood that there could be litigation
concerning the issue, regardless of whether or not the bill
passed.
Ms. Schroeder replied in the affirmative.
1:47:57 PM
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY (via
teleconference), spoke to concerns she had with CSSB 30,
specifically inconsistencies with the voter initiative. She
related that the bill version returned marijuana to the
controlled substances schedule and did not treat marijuana
like alcohol by making it legal and then regulating it like
alcohol; it returns marijuana to the controlled substances
schedule and then redefines the marijuana related conduct
that is outlawed. She stated that the agency's overarching
concerns involved the controlled substance and misconduct
involving marijuana offenses. She relayed that a number of
the provisions were inconsistent with the initiative and
could confuse, rather than clarify, the type of conduct
that was legal or illegal. She asserted that the offences
seemed to differentiate between the numbers of plants that
a person was prohibited from possessing and an aggregate
weight of marijuana a person was prohibited from
possessing. She referred to Page 5, lines 2-4, relating to
felony conduct. She stated that the problem with this
section was two-fold. She explained that the definition of
marijuana included all parts of the plant; a distinction
needed to be made between 16 ounces of a plant and 16
ounces of useable marijuana. She said that current statute
AS 11.71.080 defined the aggregate weight of a live plant
as one-sixth of the measured weight of the marijuana plant
after the roots of the plant had been removed. She said
that the combination of the broad definition of marijuana
included all parts of the plant and the use of the term
aggregate weight in the provision led to the conclusion
that the provision applied not only to useable marijuana,
but to plants. She stated that if the one-sixth calculation
were applied a person would be penalized for the plant,
rather than only the useable marijuana.
1:54:30 PM
Ms. Wollenberg suggested returning to the term "usable
marijuana," adopted in the Senate Judiciary Committee. She
shared that there was a definition for useable marijuana in
existing law under AS 17.37. She said that the use of the
term usable marijuana, in conjunction with deleting the
aggregate weight provision, would make the distinction
between the number of plants a person could possess and the
weight of usable marijuana that could be possessed. She
said that expecting that plants would not weigh more than
one ounce was not realistic.
1:55:47 PM
Ms. Wollenberg pointed out another potential inconsistency
with the initiative. She stated that the initiative allowed
a person to possess all of the marijuana produced from the
plants on the premises where the plants were grown. She
explained that under the legislation, if 3 plants produced
4 ounces of marijuana each, some of which was put into a
freezer for later use, marijuana then produced by another
plant would put the grower in violation.
1:56:58 PM
Ms. Wollenberg she spoke to Section 6, line 11, which was
starkly inconsistent with the initiative. She relayed that
the provision would outlaw transport, manufacture, and
delivery of more than one ounce of a schedule 6 controlled
substance; the initiative specifically allowed for the
delivery of once ounce, plus up to 6 immature marijuana
plants. She surmised that there was a problem in the bill
of distinguishing between one ounce of useable marijuana
and the weight of the plants themselves.
1:58:48 PM
Ms. Wollenberg spoke to the non-applicability provisions.
She explained that non-applicability codes were not often
used because they created confusion. She said that if the
intent was to not outlaw certain types of conduct then it
would be clearer to the public to state what was legal and
what was illegal in the legislation. She felt that first
time growers could have difficulty gaging how much plants
would weigh. She felt that illegal conduct should be
published outside of the scope of AS 17.37.020.
2:01:08 PM
Ms. Wollenburg stated that because the non-applicability
codes were not common it was conceivable that a person
could be arrested for conduct that was actually legal,
which would lead to litigation in court.
2:02:22 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether there was anything in the
initiative that required the removal of marijuana from the
controlled substance list.
Ms. Wollenburg responded that she did not believe that the
initiative had set up the mechanics of how the legislature
should proceed on the matter. She commented that the
purpose and findings of the initiative made clear that the
use of marijuana should be legal for persons 21 years of
age or older, and that law enforcement resources be used
elsewhere because marijuana would be legalized and sold by
regulated businesses. She said that keeping in the
controlled substances schedule was inconsistent with the
purpose of the initiative.
2:04:54 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon highlighted the fact that marijuana was
still illegal on the federal level. She solicited a comment
on the federal legality of the transportation, use, and
possession of marijuana.
Ms. Wollenburg conceded that marijuana would remain illegal
under federal law. She did not believe that states were
prohibited from passing laws to regulate marijuana in the
manner of previous drafts of the legislation. She
understood that if the state was adequately and fully
regulating the use of marijuana, the federal government
would not intervene.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether marijuana was an illegal
substance on the federal level.
Ms. Wollenburg replied in the affirmative.
2:06:36 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche revealed that he was, "not a fan" of
the initiative. He expressed concern that there was no way
for a person growing marijuana legally in the state to know
the weight of a live plant until it is harvested.
Ms. Wollenburg agreed. She added that the public would not
know how much each plant was going to weigh; the provision
that restricted the possession of an aggregate weight of
mare than X amount, when X amount included all parts of the
plant, was problematic.
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that there was no way to
accurately weigh the entire living plant.
Ms. Wollenburg understood that that was one of the reasons
that the aggregate weight provision was put in to place.
2:08:51 PM
Ms. Wollenburg referred to Page 10, section 10, lines 7 -
15:
(1) up to $300 for a violation of (a)(l),
(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section; upon
conviction of a person under (a)(2)(A) of this
section, the court may grant a suspended imposition of
sentence under AS 12.55.085 and place the person on
probation for up to one year. Among the conditions of
probation, the court shall, with the consent of a
community diversion panel, refer the person to the
panel, and require the person to comply with
conditions set by the panel, including counseling,
education, treatment, community work, and payment of
fees. In this subsection, "community diversion panel"
means a youth court or other group selected by the
court to serve as a sentencing option for a person
convicted under (a)(2)(A) of this section;
Ms. Wollenburg commented that because of the nature of the
potential penalties, the full panoply of rights that are
attendant to a criminal case could be called into play. She
said that past case law suggested that the court might find
that the rights were applicable when there was the
possibility of probation or community diversion panel. She
suggested that the committee consider whether it intends to
impose those types of penalties that require those types of
resources for a violation that otherwise might carry a $300
fine.
2:11:28 PM
Ms. Wollenburg referred to Page 11, section 13, line 13:
* Sec.13. AS 11.71.31 l(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person may not be prosecuted for a
violation of AS 11.71.030(a)(3), 11.71.040(a)(3) or
(4), 11.71.050(a)(2), or 11.71.060(a)(2)
[ll.71.060(a)(l) OR (2)] if that person
(l) sought, in good faith, medical or law
enforcement assistance for another person who the
person reasonably believed was experiencing a drug
overdose and
(A) the evidence supporting the
prosecution for an offense under AS ll.71.030(a)(3),
ll.71.040(a)(3) or (4), ll.71.050(a)(2), or
11.71.060(a)(2) [l1.71.060(a)(l) OR (2)] was obtained
or discovered as a result of the person seeking
medical or law enforcement assistance;
(B) the person remained at the scene
with the other person until medical or law enforcement
assistance arrived; and
(C) the person cooperated with medical
or law enforcement personnel, including by providing
identification;
(2) was experiencing a drug overdose and sought
medical assistance, and the evidence supporting a
prosecution for an offense under AS ll.71.030(a)(3),
ll.71.040(a)(3) or (4), ll.71.050(a)(2), or
11.71.060(a)(2) [ll.71.060(a)(l) OR (2)] was obtained
as a result of the overdose and the need for medical
assistance.
Ms. Wollenburg believed that the previous version of the
bill had broadened the section to allow for the seeking of
medical or law enforcement assistance for a person
experiencing an adverse reaction to marijuana. She
encouraged language that would allow people to seek medical
assistance for people who were experiencing adverse
reactions to potential marijuana use, even if it could not
be classified as a strict drug overdose. She noted that
popular opinion stated people could not overdose on
marijuana.
2:12:41 PM
Ms. Wollenburg referred to Section 15, page 12 line 10,
which defined remuneration. She said that the definition
was potentially broader than the initiative had intended.
She noted that it was broader than the definition for
alcohol, which prohibited a person from selling an
alcoholic beverage without a license.
2:14:35 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about Section 13. She requested
clarification with regard to use of the word "overdose."
Ms. Wollenburg replied that the term "drug overdose"
commonly implied that a person had taken drugs at a
potentially fatal level; the adverse reaction that a person
might suffer from marijuana would not be necessarily due to
the amount of marijuana the person had taken, but rather
the potency of the strain, or if the person was a first
time user.
2:17:00 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed committee attention to the fact
that on Page 11, lines 18, 28, and 31; the word "overdose"
was used. She hoped that specific language in the bill that
was problematic could be identified and addressed for
clarity.
2:17:35 PM
Ms. Wollenburg continued to Page 17, section 26, line 12:
Sec. 17.38.210. Access of persons under 21 years of
age to registered premises. (a) A person under 21
years of age may not knowingly enter or remain on
premises registered under this chapter where
marijuana, marijuana products, or marijuana
accessories are sold.
(b) A person does not violate (a) of this section
if the person
(1) enters and remains on premises
registered under this chapter at the request of a
peace officer, if the peace officer accompanies,
supervises, or otherwise observes the person's entry
or remaining on premises, and the purpose for the
entry or remaining on premises is to assist in the
enforcement of this section; or
(2) is accompanied by a parent, guardian, or
spouse who has attained 21 years of age.
(c) A person who violates this section is guilty
of a violation and is punishable by a fine of $300.
Ms. Wollenburg thought that the committee may want to
consider adding an exception for those under 21 years of
age who had to enter the premises in the course of their
employment, unrelated to the marijuana business.
2:19:46 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if there was anything in the
initiative that looked for such an exemption.
Ms. Wollenburg replied in the negative.
Vice-Chair Micciche thought that it could be difficult for
a person to work in a "cannabis club" without breathing in
second hand smoke.
Ms. Wollenburg clarified that the exception would not be
that someone under age could work at a cannabis club or
marijuana establishment, only that they not be subject to
violation if their work, unrelated to the establishment,
brings them momentarily into the marijuana establishment.
Vice-Chair Micciche commented that there were some things
that were difficult to regulate like alcohol because of the
differences in how the intoxicant was consumed.
2:21:28 PM
Ms. Wollenburg commented on Page 18, line 11:
Sec. 17.38.240. Court records of violations of
persons under 21 years of age. The Alaska Court System
may not publish on a publicly available website the
court records of a violation of AS l 1.71.07l(a)(2)(A)
or AS 17.38.210 by a person who was under 21 years of
age at the time of the offense, after the court
proceedings are completed and the case is closed.
Ms. Wollenburg reiterated that the provision would only
remove a minor's file form CourtView, but would not make
the file confidential.
2:22:43 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche understood she was discussing sealed
records, after the completion of court proceedings and the
closure of the case.
Ms. Wollenburg replied that she was pointing out that the
files would not be sealed or confidential, making it more
difficult for future employers to access.
2:23:34 PM
Ms. Wollenburg referred to Page 22, lines 5 through 7:
(8) "open marijuana container" means a receptacle
or marijuana accessory that contains any amount of
marijuana and that is open or has a broken seal, and
any amount of marijuana is removed.
Ms. Wollenburg relayed that it would make sense to require
evidence of use, or removal of marijuana in the vehicle, if
the purpose of the open container law was to prevent use of
marijuana in a vehicle. She noted that the previous draft
of the bill had required evidence of use of marijuana in
the vehicle.
2:25:40 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested that Ms. Wollenburg submit her
comments in written form.
Ms. Wollenburg that she had relayed her comments directly
to Chuck Kopp, Staff to Vice-Chair Micciche and Erin Shine,
Staff to Senator Anna MacKinnon, and that any requests of
written finding would need to be authorized by Quinlan
Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon related that both eventualities would be
helpful.
2:27:37 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon welcomed Nancy Meade, General Counsel,
Alaska Court System to the table.
2:28:13 PM
NANCY MEAD, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, said that
there were three areas of the legislation she hoped the
committee would address. She turned to Page 10, lines 8 -
15:
(1) up to $300 for a violation of (a)(l),
(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section; upon
conviction of a person under (a)(2)(A) of this
section, the court may grant a suspended imposition of
sentence under AS 12.55.085 and place the person on
probation for up to one year. Among the conditions of
probation, the court shall, with the consent of a
community diversion panel, refer the person to the
panel, and require the person to comply with
conditions set by the panel, including counseling,
education, treatment, community work, and payment of
fees. In this subsection, "community diversion panel"
means a youth court or other group selected by the
court to serve as a sentencing option for a person
convicted under (a)(2)(A) of this section;
Ms. Mead reiterated Ms. Wollenburg's concerns with the
language. She stated that suspending the imposition of the
sentence could be problematic because the definition of
"violation" was something that was punishable only by a
fine; to add other potential punishments, namely probation,
was inconsistent with the definitions and would confuse the
issue. She believed that the drafters were trying to
imitate what happened with minor consuming cases, but those
cases were not considered violations.
2:30:53 PM
Ms. Mead commented on Page 18, lines 5-10:
Sec. 17.38.230. Bail forfeiture for certain
offenses. The supreme court shall establish by rule or
order a schedule of bail amounts that may be forfeited
without court appearance for a violation of AS
11.71.071, AS 17.38.210, and 17.38.220. The supreme
court, in establishing scheduled amounts of bail under
this section, may not allow for disposition of an
offense without court appearance for a person under 18
years of age who is cited for a violation of AS l
l.71.07l(a)(2)(A).
Ms. Mead suggested adding 17.38.200 to the list of
violations in the section. She said that AS
11.71.071(a)(2)(A) was for people under the age of 21,
which meant that the section created two separate
punishments depending on the age of the person being cited.
She believed that the issue could be addressed with a
drafting adjustment so that those under 18 were cited by a
different statute than those between 18 and 21 years of
age.
2:33:14 PM
Ms. Mead said that the bill had two definitions of
marijuana that would appear in statute in two different
places. She spoke to Page 12, line 2:
(14) "marijuana" means all parts of the plant of
the genus cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds
thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the
plant, and every compound, manufacture, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or
its resin, including marijuana concentrate;
"marijuana" does not include fiber produced from the
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant,
sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of
germination, or the weight of any other ingredient
combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral
administrations, food, drink, or other products;
Ms. Mead read the second definition of marijuana on Page
20, line 23:
(6) "marijuana" means all parts of the plant of
the genus cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds
thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the
plant, and every compound, manufacture, [SALT,]
derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its
seeds, or its resin, including marijuana concentrate;
"marijuana" does not include fiber produced from the
stalks, oil [,] or cake made from the seeds of the
plant, sterilized seed of the plant that [WHICH] is
incapable of germination, or the weight of any other
ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical
or oral administrations, food, drink, or other
products;
Ms. Mead relayed that having the definition located in two
different places in the bill could be problematic.
2:35:13 PM
MAJOR DENNIS CASANOVAS, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), directed the
committee to Page 5, lines 6-10:
(4) possesses a schedule IIIA, IVA, or VA [, OR
VIA] controlled substance
or
(A) with reckless disregard that the possession
occurs
(i) on or within 500 feet of school grounds;
or
(ii) at or within 500 feet of a recreation
or youth center;
Major Casanovas relayed that under AS 17.38.120(d), if
schools, youth recreational centers, or other businesses or
property owners wished to prohibit the possession of
marijuana on their premises, the burden had been shifted to
those location to post the prohibition; violations would
then be investigated and prosecuted as trespassing
offenses.
2:37:17 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the definition of "reckless
disregard" on page 5, line 8.
Major Casanovas replied that the definition of "reckless"
was referred to in other parts of the statute. He said that
he could not speak to the question.
Co-Chair MacKinnon said that a definition would be
provided.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that 500 feet encompassed a large
area. He wondered whether there were other legal substances
that were not allowed within 500 feet of school grounds or
recreational youth centers.
Major Casanovas believed that most private and community
property allowed the land owner, or guardian of the
property, to decide what items were allowed to be brought
onto the land, or into the building; any prohibitions had
to be posted and would be enforced from a trespass
standpoint.
2:39:27 PM
Major Casanovas referred to Page 11, lines 6-12:
* Sec. 12. AS 11. 71. l 90(b) is repealed and reenacted to
read:
(b) Schedule VIA includes, unless specifically
excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any
material, compound, mixture, or preparation that
contains any quantity of the following substances:
(1) marijuana;
(2) hashish;
(3) hash oil or hashish oil.
Major Casanovas suggested that, for clarity, the committee
include tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), a principal
psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, in the
description of a controlled substance VIA.
He referred to Page 23, section 36, lines 20-21:
* Sec. 36. AS ll.71.040(a)(2), ll.71.060(a)(l),
11.7l.l60(f)(l), ll.71.160(f)(2); AS 17.38.030,
17.38.040, and 17.38.050 are repealed.
Major Casanovas explained that the list of statutes to be
repealed left THC in statute, and currently THC was
identified as a schedule 3(a) controlled substance. He
concluded that THC should be included as part of the
definition of marijuana, or part if the schedule 6(a)
description, if it were going to be removed from the
schedule 3(a) description.
2:41:19 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for information regarding THC.
ORIN DYM, FORENSIC LABORATORY MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY (via teleconference), related that THC was a natural
product produced by the marijuana plant, and was the main
psychoactive component. He stated that the plant produced
other cannabinoids produced by the plant, but THC was the
most powerful.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether THC could be manufactured
in a lab. She queried whether it would be appropriate to
include THC in the definition.
Mr. Dym replied that THC could be produced in a lab, but
that it was not generally done because it was readily
available through the plant. He felt that the question of
whether THC should be included in the definition was a
matter for the Department of Law.
2:44:59 PM
Senator Bishop asked whether a test existed to measure the
THC concentration in oils.
Mr. Dym replied that it could be done. He believed that the
development of a method would take approximately 3 months.
2:46:10 PM
Major Casanovas moved to Page 22, section 31, lines 5-7:
(8) "open marijuana container" means a receptacle
or marijuana accessory that contains any amount of
marijuana and that is open or has a broken seal, and
any amount of marijuana is removed.
Major Casanovas said that "open marijuana container" spoke
to an accessory that was open or had a broken seal and any
amount of marijuana had been removed. He stated that it was
not clear whether a smoking or inhaling device that had
been used before the person got into the vehicle, would fit
into that definition. He expressed concern that the
language did not define what how live marijuana plants
would be transported, or what definition the plants would
fall under.
2:48:02 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether the department could
manage decriminalized marijuana without this legislation.
Major Casanovas responded that the department had been
operating since February 24, 2015, with the ballot
initiative language in contrast to some areas of Title 11.
He said that the Alaska State Troopers were averaging 1 to
2 events per day involving marijuana across the state. He
relayed that there had not yet been a circumstance that had
been at odds with current statutes, versus the ballot
measure. He mentioned the likelihood of litigation
resulting from conflicting statutes and interpretation of
statutes.
2:50:24 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche understood that further clarity in the
bill language would be beneficial.
Major Casanovas replied that he would prefer less
litigation and hoped that all the involved parties could
come up with an agreed upon set of rules.
2:51:31 PM
AT EASE
2:51:58 PM
RECONVENED
2:52:07 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALCOHOL BEVERAGE
CONTROL (ABC) BOARD, commented that the scope of authority
that the board had over alcohol in the state, gave the
board complete control over ever verb involving alcohol,
including possession. She said that looking at Title 4 it
was impossible to separate licensing and creating
commercial establishments around alcohol from enforcement
of individuals who would deal with alcohol without a
license. She explained that the tension for the regulatory
agency between Title 11 and Title 17, was assuring that
enforcement officers had statutory authority to act on
businesses and individuals who held licenses, and had the
authority to shut down places that attempt to look like
licensed marijuana businesses, but were not. She asserted
that a control board dealing with marijuana should have
some authority relating to shutting down the black market
aspect of marijuana. She said that the way that AS 17.38
currently read, the ABC Board only had the authority to
make the rules for licensed sellers.
2:57:31 PM
Ms. Franklin related a concern with local control. She
referred to Page 18, lines 16 - 21:
Sec. 17.38.250. Local option. (a) If a majority
of the voters voting on the question vote to approve
the option, an established village shall exercise a
local option to prohibit the operation of marijuana
establishments.
(b) A ballot question to adopt a local option
under this section must at least contain language
substantially similar to the following: "Shall (name
of village) adopt a local option to prohibit the
operation of marijuana establishments? (yes or no)."
Ms. Franklin hoped that whatever rules were developed
around local option and marijuana mirrored the rules
relating to local option and alcohol. She said that local
option allowed a community to opt in or out, but also
allowed for a menu of what would and would not be allowed
in individual communities. She said that one local option
that she had discussed at length with municipalities would
make the municipality the sole point of retail sale of the
substance in their community.
3:01:15 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there would be public
testimony the following day.
CSSB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:02:47 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 30 Municipal Attorney Association Testimony - Chandler.doc |
SFIN 3/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Letter from Alaska Municipal League.PDF |
SFIN 3/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Dept of Law Policy Issues Letter to Senate FIN.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Legal Memo on Non-Applicabilty Sections in AS 11.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Sectional Analysis Version X.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |