Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/2015 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 13, 2015
1:52 p.m.
1:52:51 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:52 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
Chuck Kopp, Staff to Senator Peter Micciche; Jordan
Shilling, Staff to Senator John Coghill; Libby Bakalar,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Hilary Martin, Legislative Legal Services, Juneau
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."
1:53:06 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon reintroduced Amendment 6:
Page 5, lines 2 - 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"(F) 16 [ONE OR MORE PREPARATIONS,
COMPOUNDS,
MIXTURES, OR SUBSTANCES OF AN AGGREGATE WEIGHT OF
FOUR] ounces or more of usable marijuana [CONTAINING A
SCHEDULE VIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE]; or"
Page 6, lines 16 - 18:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) more [ONE OR MORE PREPARATIONS,
COMPOUNDS, MIXTURES, OR SUBSTANCES OF AN AGGREGATE
WEIGHT OF LESS] than one ounce of usable marijuana
[CONTAINING A SCHEDULE VIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE];"
Page 7, lines 8 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(E) at least three ounces but less than 16
ounces of usable marijuana [ONE OR MORE PREPARATIONS,
COMPOUNDS, MIXTURES, OR SUBSTANCES OF AN AGGREGATE
WEIGHT OF ONE OUNCE OR MORE CONTAINING A SCHEDULE VIA
CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE]; or"
Page 7, line 16:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 7, lines 19 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) one ounce or less of usable marijuana
for remuneration; or"
Page 7, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page8, line5:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 8, lines 16-17:
Delete "at least two ounces but less than three
ounces [LESS THAN ONE OUNCE]"
Insert "less than one ounce"
Page 8, following line 22:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(4) possesses at least two ounces but less
than three ounces of usable marijuana;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 8, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight
of'
Page 8, line 27:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 8, line 29:
Delete "(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(5)"
Insert "(a)(4) - (a)(6)"
Page 9, line 1:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 9, lines 9 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) possesses more than one ounce but less
than two ounces of usable marijuana;"
Page9, lines 14-16:
Delete all material and insert:
"(i) possesses less than two ounces of
usable marijuana; or"
Page 9, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 9, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 9, line 21:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 9, line 28:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 9, line 31, through page 10, line 1:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 10, line 20:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana [A SCHEDULE VIA
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE]"
Page 12, line 10:
Delete "a new paragraph"
Insert "new paragraphs"
Page 12, line 12, following "means":
Insert";
(32) "usable marijuana" means the seeds,
leaves, buds, and flowers of the plant genus
cannabis, hashish, hash oil, and marijuana
concentrates, but does not include the stalks or
roots of the plant genus cannabis"
Page 13, line 10, following "of':
Insert "usable"
Page 13, line 15, following "more of':
Insert "usable"
Page23, line 18:
Delete "a schedule VIA controlled substance"
Insert "usable marijuana"
Page 23, line 20, following "ll.71.060(a)(l),":
Insert" ll.71.060(a)(2)(A),"
Co-Chair MacKinnon maintained her OBJECTION to Amendment 6.
1:54:16 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon introduced two conceptual amendments to
Amendment 6 relating to possession of 16 ounces of
marijuana and plants in the home.
1:54:41 PM
AT EASE
1:55:58 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked committee members to turn to Page
4 of Amendment 6.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MOVED to AMEND Amendment 6 with
Conceptual Amendment 1 [later the action was rescinded as
one cannot amend an amendment two times]:
Page 4, lines 13 through 16
Delete: all materials
1:56:37 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche OBJECTED for discussion.
1:56:53 PM
HILARY MARTIN, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), testified that this section of the bill
referred to the affirmative defense for medical marijuana
users. She clarified that the amendment would return the
language of the original bill to version X of the
legislation.
1:57:42 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
1:58:04 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon MOVED to AMEND Amendment 6 with a 2nd
conceptual amendment:
Page 4, line 24
Insert: "tetrahydrocannabinols" after "hash oil"
1:58:31 PM
Co-Chair Kelly OBJECTED for discussion. Co-Chair Kelly
asked for clarification regarding the conceptual
amendments. He understood that one could amend an
amendment, but an amended amendment could not be amended.
1:59:04 PM
AT EASE
1:59:29 PM
RECONVENED
1:59:34 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to RESCIND the committee action
to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual amendment:
Page 4, lines 13 through 16
Delete: all material
Page 4, line 24
Insert: "tetrahydrocannabinols" after "hash
oil,"
Vice-Chair Micciche OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reread the amendment.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:01:53 PM
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF TO SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, explained that
the amendment was drafted in response to concerns about the
term "usable marijuana." He said that usable marijuana was
defined in AS 17.30.070, and specifically described the
part of the plant that was consumable. He said that the
amendment clarified that usable marijuana would be weighed
in ounces and the plants would be accounted for by number
of plants.
2:03:35 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 6, as amended, was ADOPTED.
2:04:12 PM
AT EASE
2:04:50 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon introduced Amendment 19.
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19, 29-
LS0231\X.57, Martin, 3/13/15 (copy on file):
Page 6, line 7, following "provisions of":
Insert "(1)(a)(3)(F) of this section do not apply
to a person who is lawfully possessing a schedule
VIA controlled substance in accordance with AS
17.38.020; or
(2)"
Page 13, lines 15 - 16:
Delete "or the possession of 16 ounces or more of
marijuana at any time"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Kopp explained that Amendment 19 clarified the intent
of the initiative that a person would be allowed to keep
all of the marijuana produced by plants lawfully owned and
on the premises of their own home.
2:07:47 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amendment 19.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:08:05 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche moved to rescind committee action taken
on Amendment 13, and cited Uniform Rule 31.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion. She explained
that the amendment, which had been adopted the previous
day, had only applied to one of the two titles that the
board would need authority over.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION to rescinding
Amendment 13. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
2:09:47 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 20, 29-
LS0231\X.51, Martin, 3/12/15 (copy on file):
Page 20, following line 21:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec.17.38.310. Peace officer powers. The
director of the board and the persons employed
for the administration and enforcement of this
chapter and the provisions of AS 11.71.040 -
11.71.071 involving a schedule VIA controlled
substance may, with the concurrence of the
commissioner of public safety, exercise the
powers of peace officers when those powers are
specifically granted by the board. Powers granted
by the board under this section may be e
involving a schedule VIA controlled substance
may, with the concurrence of the commissioner of
public safety, exercise the powers of peace
officers when those powers are specifically
granted by the board. Powers granted by the board
under this section may be exercised only when
necessary for the enforcement of the criminally
punishable provisions of this chapter, the
provisions of AS 11.71.040 - 11.71.071 involving
a schedule VIA controlled substance, regulations
of the board, and other criminally punishable
laws and regulations."
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF TO SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, testified
that the amendment would provide to the board the authority
to enforce certain provisions of Title 11 that would be
necessary in order to regulate marijuana.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amendment 20.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:10:45 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 21, 29-
LS0231\X.55, Martin, 3/12/15 (copy on file):
Page 6, lines 14 - 16:
Delete "transports, manufactures or delivers, or
possesses with the intent to manufacture or
deliver,
(A)"
Insert "transports [MANUFACTURES] or delivers
(A) [, OR POSSESSES WITH THE INTENT TO
MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER,]"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Kopp explained that Amendment 21 addressed carry-over
language in the law that had existed prior to the passage
of the initiative. He relayed that under the initiative,
in-home manufacturing, and possession with the intent to
manufacture in-home, was lawful. He shared that transport
and delivery would still be illegal.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amendment 21.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:12:55 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 22, 29-
LS0231\X.48, Martin, 3/12/15 (copy on file).
Page 3, following line 14:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec. 3. AS l1.56.375(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of promoting
contraband in the first degree if the person violates
AS 11.56.380 and the contraband is
1) a deadly weapon or a defensive
weapon;
(2) an article that is intended by the
defendant to be used as a means of
facilitating an escape; or
(3) a schedule IA - VA controlled
substance.
*Sec. 4. AS 11.56.380(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of promoting
contraband in the second degree if the
person
(1) introduces, takes, conveys, or
attempts to introduce, take, or
convey contraband into a correctional
facility; [OR]
(2) makes, obtains, possesses, or
attempts to make, obtain, or possess
anything that person knows to be
contraband while under official
detention within a correctional
facility; or
(3) introduces, takes, conveys, or
attempts to introduce, take, or convey
a schedule VIA controlled substance
into a correctional facility."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 23, line 25:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 23, line 26:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 23, line 27:
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 8"
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 1 O"
Page 23, line 28:
Delete "sec. 10"
Insert "sec. 12"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Shilling explained that the amendment addressed the
crime of promoting contraband. He shared that under current
law bringing a controlled substance into a correctional
facility was a class C felony. He suggested that it could
be appropriate to treat marijuana like alcohol, which would
drop the penalty to a class A misdemeanor.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amendment 22.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:14:13 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 23, 29-
LS0231\X.50, Martin, 3/12/15 (copy on file):
Page 16, lines 18 - 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"*Sec. 25. AS 17.38.1 IO(a) is amended to 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.
The operation of marijuana cultivation facilities,
marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana
testing facilities, and retail marijuana stores in the
unorganized borough outside of a municipality is
prohibited. An established village may permit the
operation of marijuana cultivation facilities,
marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana
testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores as
provided in AS 17.38.250."
Page 18, line 16:
Delete "option"
Insert "options"
Page 18, line 18:
Delete "prohibit the operation of marijuana
establishments"
Insert "permit the operation of one or more of
the following types of marijuana establishments:
(1) marijuana cultivation facilities;
(2) marijuana product manufacturing facilities;
(3) marijuana testing facilities; or
(4) retail marijuana stores"
Page 18, line 21:
Delete "prohibit the operation of marijuana
establishments"
Insert "permit (specify local option under (a) of
this section)"
Page 18, line 22:
Delete "option"
Insert "options"
Page 18, lines 28 - 29:
Delete "prohibits the operation of marijuana
establishments"
Insert "permits (current local option under AS
17.38.250(a))"
Page 18, line 30, through page 19, line 3:
Delete all material.
Page 19, line 4:
Delete "local option prohibition of'
Insert "removal of local options permitting"
Page 19, lines 5 - 6:
Delete "prohibit the operation of marijuana
establishments under AS 17.38.250"
Insert "remove a local option permitting the
operation of marijuana establishments under AS
17.38.260"
Page 19, line 9:
Delete "AS 17.38.250"
Insert "AS 17.38.260"
Page 19, lines 26 - 27:
Delete "Only one local option question may be
presented in an election"
Insert "A local option question to permit the
operation of marijuana cultivation facilities,
marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana
testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores or to
permit all marijuana establishments may be presented
in one election"
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
LIBBY BAKALAR, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, related that the issue at hand was voter intent versus
what could be done by the legislature. She thought that the
question for the Supreme Court would ultimately be whether
the change would be significant enough to effectuate a
substantive repeal of a significant provision of the bill.
She noted that the body had broad amendatory power and
cited two court cased regarding legislative interpretation
of voter's initiatives. She felt that the amendment was
defensible in court. She furthered that if a plaintiff
wanted to open a marijuana facility in an unorganized
borough, and attempted to challenge the amendment, the
court would need to determine whether the voters in the
unorganized borough were receiving what they thought they
had voted for. She thought that a relevant inquiry for that
would be to examine voter turnout, up or down, for the
measure in the unorganized borough.
2:18:50 PM
Ms. Bakalar offered that she could not give assurances that
the amendment would stand in court as consistent with voter
intent. She cited the bill:
*Sec.25. AS.17.38.110(a)is amended to 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.
Ms. Bakalar said that under the section, the committee
stood in the shoes of the assembly and the unorganized
borough.
2:19:50 PM
Senator Hoffman related that the municipalities could keep
in line with voter intent by being allowed the option to
participate. He inquired what the amendment would
accomplish.
2:20:41 PM
Ms. Bakalar responded that the amendment gave local
government the authority to prohibit under Section 25,
which was what the legislature was ostensibly attempting to
do for established villages.
2:21:27 PM
Senator Hoffman understood that the rest of the law would
remain the same, but in this instance the legislature would
be acting on behalf of the unorganized areas of the state.
He furthered that there would be a discussion concerning
benefits and detriments to the community before growing and
retail establishments were realized. He felt that this
would allow communities to vote whether or not they wanted
marijuana facilities in their communities. He felt that
once communities experienced the problems attached to
marijuana use, they would opt out of participation in the
same way they had with alcohol. He believed having the
discussion now could stave off problems related to
marijuana in the future.
2:23:41 PM
Ms. Bakalar agreed.
Senator Hoffman said that if marijuana was to be treated
like alcohol, and the committee agreed that alcohol played
a significantly negative role in rural Alaska, then there
should be little opposition to the amendment. He reiterated
that a dialogue on the issue needed to occur before
problems began, rather than after.
2:24:53 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the local option
amendment had been crafted out of the concern for rural
Alaska and the committee's ability to act on their behalf.
2:25:20 PM
Senator Olson asserted that rural Alaska lacked the
infrastructure to handle issues related to marijuana. He
urged support for the amendment.
2:27:22 PM
AT EASE
2:32:46 PM
RECONVENED
2:32:53 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon solicited further comments on the
amendment.
2:33:29 PM
Co-Chair Kelly pointed out that the provision was
constitutional and not statutory.
2:33:42 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche reiterated his dislike of the
initiative. He voiced that rural Alaska did not need
another substance challenge. He said that his district had
voted "no" on the initiative. He thought that it would be
patronizing to assume that rural communities did not
understand what they had voted to support. He believed that
the amendment was counter to the initiative.
2:35:25 PM
Co-Chair Kelly expressed his support for Amendment 23. He
agreed that the amendment was most likely counter to the
initiative, but he believed that the constitutional
provision instructed that the body act as the sitting
legislature for the unorganized areas. He contended that
the ballot measure had attempted to subvert the power
allowed to lawmakers by permitting the issue of marijuana
to be settled by a public vote. He acknowledged that the
people of the state had known about the issue of local
option when voting, but thought that the legislature should
intervene in the matter.
2:37:22 PM
Senator Dunleavy referred to Article 10 of The Constitution
of the State of Alaska, which speaks to local governments.
2:37:51 PM
Senator Olson requested that representatives of the bill
sponsor offer an opinion on the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed out that they would only be able
to offer their personal opinions, which were unnecessary
for crafting policy.
2:38:43 PM
AT EASE
2:40:37 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Olson stated that as a lifetime rural resident, he
felt very strongly about the issue of local option. He felt
that the bill sponsor would support the amendment.
2:41:54 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon communicated that the bill sponsor,
Senator Lesil Maguire, was unable to speak to the amendment
because she was out of town. She did not think that it
would be appropriate for the support staff in the room to
speak on her behalf.
2:43:34 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested that Ms. Bakalar speak to how
the body could appropriately set forth and clarify in the
legislative record the committee's intent to recognize that
there were some communities with local control that might
not have the ability to vote as others in the state. She
asserted that this was a loophole that had been discovered
by the legislature. She asked if public testimony should
held on the amendment.
2:45:18 PM
Ms. Bakalar opined that the amendment could be bolstered by
legislative findings. She a court ruling was undeterminable
at this time. She said that is was the legislature's
obligation to represent the assembly for unincorporated
communities; however, the extent that the amendment changed
the measure that was voted on from an opt-out to an opt-in
system, it should be accompanied by legislative findings.
2:46:32 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the legislature could
research the possible negative effects marijuana might have
on and unincorporated community, and provide legislative
findings to support regulating marijuana like alcohol in
those areas, in order to provide support for the amendment.
Ms. Bakalar agreed that the findings would inform the
courts analysis of whether the amendment was sufficiently
consistent with the initiative. She posited that the
amendatory power of the body was broader due to the
numerous issues contained in the bill. She concluded that
legislative findings supporting the action taken under
Article 10 would assist the court in evaluating whether the
amendment was consistent with the will of the voters.
2:49:00 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that she did not believe that
alcohol was identical to marijuana, but that in support of
the intent of the amendment she recognized the risk
marijuana posed inside of smaller communities. She asked
whether the amendment would provide for a future option to
opt-in.
Ms. Bakalar replied in the affirmative.
2:50:10 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amendment 23.
Vice-Chair Micciche MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
2:51:22 PM
Senator Hoffman surmised that the committee was weighing
the pros and cons, as well as good and ill that marijuana
brought to the state. He contended that the legislature sat
as the assembly for the unorganized boroughs, and would not
be subverting the initiative via the amendment. He
furthered that dialogue regarding operation of facilities
and dispensaries was necessary before the unorganized
boroughs opted-in rather than after. He emphasized that the
amendment did not circumvent the will of the people by
voting as their assembly and reversing the option.
2:53:52 PM
Senator Bishop wondered how much it would cost the
communities to run an election and vote on whether to opt
in or out.
Co-Chair MacKinnon believed that the problem was that there
were not specific local boundaries in some communities to
hold an election, as the boroughs were unorganized.
2:54:25 PM
Senator Dunleavy related that unorganized boroughs held
Regional Education Attendance Area elections, and that the
question could be attached to those ballots. He thought
that the cost could run approximately $1500.
2:54:50 PM
Senator Bishop expressed that he was conflicted on the
issue.
2:55:39 PM
Senator Olson related that a special election for the
purposes of voting on local option would be of minimal
cost. He spoke of people in rural communities being
confused by the ballot measure and asserted that the
translators that had been sent to help communities
understand the initiative had been inadequate. He contended
that a large percentage of the people in rural Alaska that
voted on the measure had not understood what they were
voting on.
2:57:05 PM
AT EASE
3:02:37 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Micciche shared that his objection was largely
philosophical, and that he held a great deal of respect for
the intention behind the amendment.
Vice-Chair Micciche MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
3:03:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
23.
IN FAVOR: Dunleavy, Hoffman, Olson, MacKinnon, Kelly
OPPOSED: Micciche, Bishop
The MOTION PASSED (5/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 23 was ADOPTED.
3:05:20 PM
AT EASE
3:07:10 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Bishop withdrew Amendment 24.
3:07:38 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 25, 29-
LS0231\X.56, Martin, 3/13/15 (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
3:07:46 PM
Co-Chair Kelly believed that there was a flaw in the
initiative that put the people of Alaska in danger,
particularly Alaska's children. He contended that voters
had not taken marijuana concentrates into consideration
when deciding on the ballot measure because "concentrates"
had not been mentioned on the ballot. He stated that
concentrates could fall under "marijuana products" in the
initiative language. He stated that concentrates were
highly manufactured and extremely potent, and had wreaked
havoc in emergency rooms, burn units, and high schools
across the country. He stated that the problem was
widespread in Colorado, which had passed a similar
initiative.
3:11:18 PM
AT EASE
3:12:14 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Kelly said that the epidemiological data on THC
was based on studies done with "leafy substance" and the
THC levels therein. He read from an article provided by
Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)(copy on file):
LONDON, ENGLAND - Today, in one of the most prominent
medical journals in the world, Lancet Psychiatry, a
team of twenty-three scientists published a large
study showing that people who smoked high-grade
marijuana - about 16% THC with no CBD, similar to
average US varieties of marijuana - were five times as
likely than non-users to have a psychotic disorder.
Weekend users were three times as likely than non-
users to have a psychotic disorder…"
Co-Chair Kelly said that the studies established a link
between psychosis and high dosages of THC across all age
spectrums. He asserted that concentrates were 80 to 90
percent THC.
3:14:48 PM
Co-Chair Kelly referred to an image on the screen which
depicted individuals partaking in the consumption of
concentrated marijuana. He pointed out a young woman who
coughed and collapsed after inhaling. He relayed that one
hit of THC concentrate was equivalent to 15 to 20 marijuana
cigarettes, could only be lit with a blow torch, and
required a spotter due to the after affects.
3:16:48 PM
Co-Chair Kelly offered an anecdote about a young man who
had taken a hit of THC concentrate that lead him to have a
psychotic break. He said that the young man was high for
three days. He said that the initiative had been more about
commercialization than legalization. He felt
commercialization would initiate a race to potency. He
relayed that one marijuana cookie contained 10 servings of
marijuana (350 milligrams) and was not meant to be consumed
in one sitting, but could be fully consumed by a child in
one sitting, and to tragic results.
3:18:37 PM
Co-Chair Kelly assumed that consuming marijuana by smoking
allowed for self-regulation, which he believed was not an
option with edibles. He hypothesized that with the race to
potency that concentration levels would steadily rise. He
feared that the method of extracting the THC would become
more and more dangerous, as it required flammable solvents
to separate the THC from the plant. He shared that there
had been 26 explosions in Colorado as a result of THC
extraction.
3:21:47 PM
Co-Chair Kelly continued to cite statistics related to THC
extraction injuries. He opined that the people of Alaska
voted to legalize marijuana, but not concentrates. He
warned that there would be deaths associated with
concentrates.
3:23:26 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon cited Section 17.38.900 of the
initiative.
(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 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.
(11) "Marijuana products" means concentrated marijuana
products and marijuana products that are comprised of
marijuana and other ingredients and are intended for
use or consumption, such as, but not limited to,
edible products, ointments, and tinctures.
She argued that the underlying initiative approved by the
Lt. Governor had contained the word "concentrates".
3:24:59 PM
Co-Chair Kelly qualified that he was referring to what the
public had had directly before them when casting their
vote.
Co-Chair MacKinnon concurred.
3:25:47 PM
Ms. Martin explained that Amendment 25 would repeal putting
has, hash oil, and TCH into category VI(a)and put them back
into category III(a), and amend the definition of marijuana
by removing hash and hash oil, two years from the effective
date. She added that the amendment would remove any other
references to marijuana concentrate, such as the crime of
manufacturing marijuana concentrate, and would make the
necessary conforming changes.
3:26:50 PM
Senator Olson commented that the SAM article was reputable
and spoke to some important issues. He said that accidental
poisoning by edibles was a top concern due to the severity
of the reactions. He likened the danger to allowing a
loaded gun in the vicinity of children.
3:28:17 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered about the removal of hash and
hash oil from the definition of marijuana.
Co-Chair Kelly replied hash and hash oil would be removed,
in addition to concentrates, because concentrated were
derived from hash and hash oil.
3:29:06 PM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that the amendment met the
constitutional requirement for initiatives because the
mechanism for removal of the language would take effect
after two years.
3:29:42 PM
AT EASE
3:33:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Kelly asked that Ms. Martin respond to Vice-Chair
Micciche's question.
3:34:08 PM
Ms. Martin said that she had reverted back to the original
statute because the amendment would remove hash, hash oil,
THC and other concentrates from the definition of
marijuana.
3:35:04 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered at what point hash became a
concentrate. He pointed out that it was clearly in the
initiative language, although not on the ballot, and had
been discussed in each committee that the bill had traveled
through. He requested more time to investigate the topic.
3:36:01 PM
Co-Chair Kelly suggested that time for contemplation was
built in to the amendment due to the sunset clause. He
maintained that that language of the initiative was broad
and that the legislature should error on the side of
caution so that little children did not get their hands on
marijuana cookies.
3:37:06 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the intent of the two year
sunset clause. He philosophized whether the constitutional
requirement would be met if the committee voted on the
amendment immediately.
3:37:39 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche said that he shared Co-Chair Kelly's
fear that children could accidentally eat a marijuana
Popsicle out of the freezer. He wondered whether the issue
could be raised again in two years.
3:38:22 PM
Co-Chair Kelly communicated that he was trying to meet
objections that he had heard at the table over the past few
weeks regarding different amendments and trying to stay
within the constitutional limits of the initiative.
3:39:17 PM
Senator Dunleavy understood that concentrates would be
allowed for the next two years whether or not the amendment
passed.
Co-Chair Kelly said that a no vote would mean concentrates
in perpetuity.
3:39:39 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed that marijuana edibles would be a
danger to children. She felt that the packaging of edibles
should be regulated and controlled and that the legislature
should address the issue of labeling. She reiterated her
request that the regulatory legislation should be drafted
that spoke to those issues. She shared that under the legal
aspects of the bill before the committee, the authority to
develop regulations would be granted to the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board. She stated that the amendment did
honor the two year constitutional requirement.
3:41:58 PM
AT EASE
3:44:28 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
3:45:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
25.
IN FAVOR: Hoffman, Olson, Bishop, Kelly
OPPOSED: Micciche, Dunleavy, MacKinnon
The MOTION PASSED (4/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 25 was ADOPTED.
3:46:25 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
SB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:46:53 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 30 DOA Quinlan Steiner Written Testimony Senate Bill 30 Version X.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Hinterberger-Yeung Comments on Amendment 6.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Amendment Packet #2.pdf |
SFIN 3/13/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |