Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/29/2014 09:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: an Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale and Use of Marijuana | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Donald Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Charisse Millett
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
HOUSE
Representative Sam Kito III
SENATE
Senator Charlie Huggins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): AN ACT TO TAX AND REGULATE THE PRODUCTION,
SALE AND USE OF MARIJUANA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division(Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis of the
marijuana initiative titled "An Act to Tax and Regulate the
Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana."
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the cost impacts that the proposed
act to tax and regulate the production, sale and use of
marijuana would have to the Department of Revenue.
MATT FONDER, Director
Anchorage Office
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the amount of estimated revenue
that the proposed act to tax and regulate the production, sale
and use of marijuana would bring to the state.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the anticipated impacts to the
Alaska Court System that would result from enactment of the
proposed act to tax and regulate the production, sale and use of
marijuana.
RONALD TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner - Anchorage
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the anticipated impacts to the
Department of Corrections that would result from enactment of
the proposed act to tax and regulate the production, sale and
use of marijuana.
L. DIANE CASTO, Prevention & Early Intervention Manager
Prevention & Early Intervention Section
Division of Behavioral Health
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the anticipated impacts to the
Department of Health & Social Services that would result from
enactment of the proposed act to tax and regulate the
production, sale and use of marijuana.
JEANNE MUNGLE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the anticipated fiscal impacts to
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
that would result from enactment of the proposed act to tax and
regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana.
SHIRLEY COTE, Executive Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the anticipated impacts to the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board that would result from
enactment of the proposed act to tax and regulate the
production, sale, and use of marijuana.
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the anticipated impacts to the
Department of Environmental Conservation that would result from
enactment of the proposed act to tax and regulate the
production, sale, and use of marijuana.
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the anticipated fiscal impacts to
the Department of Public Safety that would result from enactment
of the proposed act to tax and regulate the production, sale and
use of marijuana.
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL, Sergeant
Statewide Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU)
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to anticipated
impacts from enactment of the proposed act to tax and regulate
the production, sale, and use of marijuana.
TIM HINTERBERGER, PhD; Chair
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as chair of the Campaign to
Regulate Marijuana, testified in support of the initiative.
KELLY DREW, MD
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking in her capacity as a scientist,
testified in support of the marijuana initiative.
ROBERT CAPECCHI, Deputy Director
State Policies
Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the marijuana
initiative.
BEN CORT, Business Manager
Center for Dependency, Addiction and Rehabilitation (CeDAR)
University of Colorado Health System
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking in his capacity as one who works
at the University of Colorado Health System in-patient drug
treatment program, testified in opposition to the marijuana
initiative.
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the marijuana
initiative.
DEAN GUANELI, Attorney at Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as a former Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified in
opposition to the marijuana initiative.
ADAM BERKEY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as a medical marijuana consumer,
testified in support of the initiative.
ROSEANNE MANCUSO
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the marijuana
initiative.
JIM NELSON
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding the lack of studies on
the use of cannabis in Alaska.
DEBORAH WILLIAMS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the marijuana
initiative.
ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Executive Director
Mat-Su Health Foundation
Mat-Su Regional Medical Center
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the marijuana
initiative.
JAMES SCHENK
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the initiative.
TOM TOUGAS
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as an owner of Major Marine Tours
and with concerns regarding Alaskan youth, testified in
opposition to the marijuana initiative.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:03:48 AM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 9:03 a.m.
Present at the call to order from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee were Representatives Foster, Lynn, and Keller.
Representatives Gruenberg and Pruitt arrived after the meeting
was called to order. Representative Kito III was also present.
Present from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee were
Senators Olson and Coghill. Senator Huggins was also present.
^Presentation: An Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale
and Use of Marijuana
Presentation: An Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale
and Use of Marijuana
9:04:22 AM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation related to the initiative titled "An Act to
Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana"
that will be on the 2014 ballot. He explained the Alaska
Statutes require that legislative hearings are held for
initiatives that have been certified by the lieutenant governor.
The hearings are not for debating the bill, but to review the
legal analysis and discover the fiscal impacts and enforcement
impacts.
9:09:08 AM
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division(Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL), provided a sectional analysis of the marijuana initiative
titled "An Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use
of Marijuana." She clarified that neither the Department of
Law, nor any of her colleagues in the administration who will be
testifying on behalf of their respective departments, are taking
any position on the initiative. Presenters are before the
committees to discuss the mechanics of the initiative and offer
a completely neutral assessment of its associated costs and
impacts. She explained that "13PSUM" is a ballot measure that
has been certified on the 8/19/14 statewide primary election
ballot, and 13PSUM is the designation given the proposition by
the Division of Elections.
MS. BAKALAR described her office's role in the ballot initiative
process. The Department of Law represents the lieutenant
governor and the Division of Elections in helping them execute
their constitutional and statutory duties. Members of the
public author and propose ballot measures and are the sponsors.
There are certain statutory and constitutional limitations on
the initiative process, and her office reviews ballot measure
applications to determine whether they comply with the technical
and constitutional requirements of a ballot measure, and then
advises the lieutenant governor - usually in the form of a
written published opinion - whether DOL believes the measure
should be certified. If DOL believes the measure is legally
sound, it helps author the ballot summary. In this case, DOL
found 13PSUM to be a legally sound use of the initiative and
therefore recommended certification. Subsequently, sufficient
signatures were gathered to place the measure on the 2014
primary ballot.
9:11:10 AM
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that he has not asked anyone to take a
position on the bill; the issue is something the people of
Alaska get to decide. He explained that the position of
legislators is to figure out "how does that work," which
requires the asking of questions. During the questioning
process it might be clear as to the positions of the
legislators.
MS. BAKALAR explained the initiative bill has three sections and
proposes eighteen new statutes regulating the production, sale,
and use of marijuana. Section 1 of the bill would add fourteen
new statutes to Title 17 of the Alaska Statutes. These new
statutes would be under a new chapter, AS 17.38, Regulation of
Marijuana. She drew attention to her June 11, 2013/May 16,
2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell [included in the
members' committee packet] that provides a sectional summary of
the proposed bill. Regarding the first four of the proposed
fourteen new statutes, she paraphrased from the following
written text [original punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.010. Purpose and findings. This provision
states the Act's intent to legalize marijuana for use
by persons age 21 or older, in the interest of
allowing law enforcement to focus on violent and
property crimes and to promote individual freedom. The
statute would provide that the production and sale of
marijuana should be regulated such that legitimate
businesses--not criminal actors--sell marijuana and
that such sale should be conducted in a manner that
protects consumers and promotes public health and
safety. Finally, the statute would provide that the
Act does not intend to abrogate or diminish rights or
responsibilities under the Alaska Constitution or
federal law.
AS 17.38.020. Personal use of marijuana. This statute
would legalize the personal use of marijuana for
persons age 21 or older. Specifically, the statute
would permit: the possession, use, display, purchase,
or transportation of marijuana accessories or one
ounce or less of marijuana; the possession, growth,
processing, or transporting of no more than six
marijuana plants (with three or fewer being mature,
flowering plants) and possession of the marijuana on
the premises where the plants were grown; the transfer
of one ounce or less of marijuana and up to six
immature marijuana plants to a person who is 21 years
of age or older without remuneration; the consumption
of marijuana in a non-public location; and assisting
another person who is 21 years of age or older in any
of the above activities.
AS 17.38.030. Restrictions on personal cultivation,
penalty. This statute would impose certain
restrictions on the personal cultivation of marijuana.
Specifically, marijuana plants must be: cultivated in
a location where the plants are not subject to naked-
eye public view; reasonably secure from unauthorized
access; cultivated only on property lawfully possessed
by the cultivator or with the property owner's
consent. The statute would impose a maximum $750 fine
for a violation.
AS 17.38.040. Public consumption banned, penalty. This
statute would ban the public consumption of marijuana
and would permit a maximum $100 fine for a violation.
9:15:22 AM
CHAIR COGHILL inquired whether "in public" is defined anywhere
in this statute.
MS. BAKALAR replied the section of definitions is proposed AS
17.38.900, but said she does not see a definition of "public."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated the use in proposed AS 17.38.030 of
the words "public view" is a new concept to him. He requested a
definition.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested the initiative sponsors can probably
answer the aforementioned questions, but said he thinks this is
something that needs to be defined. He surmised it is probably
the difference between doing something by initiative versus
committee process.
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the fifth of the fourteen proposed statutes [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.050. False identification, penalty. This
statute would prohibit a person under 21 years of age
from presenting false identification to purchase or
attempt to purchase marijuana or marijuana
accessories, or access a marijuana establishment. The
statute would provide for a $400 maximum fine for a
violation.
CHAIR COGHILL asked whether this would be like a traffic ticket;
for example, a written violation that is contestable.
MS. BAKALAR answered she is unsure about "contestable," but
imagines yes. The maximum fine for a violation is $400, and
while it is not stated in the bill, she presumed it would be
similar to any other false identification presented for alcohol
or cigarettes.
CHAIR COGHILL presumed there is a corollary but said this is
something that should be looked at.
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the sixth of the fourteen proposed statutes [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.060. Marijuana accessories authorized. This
statute would legalize the manufacture, possession,
purchase, distribution, and sale of marijuana
accessories by and to persons age 21 years of age or
older.
MS. BAKALAR added that a definition of "marijuana accessories"
is [item (7)] in the last provision of the proposed statues.
CHAIR COGHILL understood from reading the initiative that
political subdivisions could restrict the use of marijuana, but
at this point it would say "notwithstanding any other
provision." He surmised this would mean that these accessories
could probably be sold without regard to the restrictions that a
community might make.
MS. BAKALAR believed this is true, saying there is a provision
in the bill on local control that talks about what localities
can do to impose certain restrictions on the bill's operation.
She offered her belief that a locality cannot enact an ordinance
in conflict with the statute, but can tailor the community's
needs based on local control options.
CHAIR COGHILL said it will be interesting if a community cannot
restrict accessories but must somehow manage the actual sale,
purchase, and manufacture of marijuana.
9:19:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether accessories are currently
outlawed.
MS. BAKALAR responded she does not know the law on accessories,
but she knows a person can walk into a store and buy marijuana
accessories. It is "sort of a wink-and-a-nod type of a thing
where they're sold for tobacco purposes, not for marijuana use."
The proposed initiative would bring the use of those types of
accessories into a more legitimate light.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed a scenario in which someone buys
a little trowel that could be used to plant anything, including
a marijuana plant. He asked how that would be enforceable.
CHAIR COGHILL referred Representative Gruenberg to the section
with definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that is what he is referring to
because someone could say the trowel was purchased for planting
a tomato.
MS. BAKALAR answered it would be a question of fact if there
were ever a prosecution or legal proceeding on that particular
issue.
CHAIR COGHILL commented these are questions the people of Alaska
need to hear and think about.
9:21:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER understood DOL has certified this for the
election, but there are federal laws of controlled substance.
He inquired whether it is normal for the department to certify
initiatives that defy federal law.
MS. BAKALAR replied there are four constitutional restrictions
on the use of the initiative process. An initiative may not
make or repeal an appropriation, dedicate revenue, create rules
of court, or create local or special legislation. A measure may
not be clearly unconstitutional under controlling law and the
[Alaska] Supreme Court has interpreted that. An initiative bill
on the order of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
(1954); segregation of schools; or secession of the state from
the union would be a clearly unconstitutional type of authority
that would violate the use of the initiative. In this case,
none of those issues were present. The existence of a
conflicting federal statute can sometimes be a complicated
question of preemption and she acknowledged the committee may
have some questions about how state and federal law interact on
that point. But, no, she continued, a federal statute would not
prevent this initiative or any initiative from going to the
ballot here.
CHAIR COGHILL allowed this legislature has been bullish on
challenging federal authority, but said there are some real
practical questions on how the enforcement [of conflicting
federal law] would work under these conditions.
9:23:11 AM
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the seventh of the fourteen proposed statutes [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.070. Lawful operation of marijuana-related
facilities. This statute would legalize certain
activities conducted by a validly registered retail
marijuana store, marijuana cultivation facility,
marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana
testing facility, or any such establishment's
authorized owner, agent, or employee, as long as that
person is 21 years of age or older. Generally, the
statute would provide that such an establishment may
purchase, possess, display, store, transport, deliver,
transfer, receive, harvest, process, or package
marijuana and marijuana products subject to certain
restrictions. The statute would provide that such an
establishment may be penalized for violations of the
Act or duly adopted rules of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) Board or local governments pursuant to
the Act. Finally, the statute would provide that the
provisions of AS 17.30.020 (Controlled Substances) do
not apply to marijuana establishments.
CHAIR COGHILL noted the language, "notwithstanding any other
provision of law," is frequently used in the bill. He said his
expectation is "that is a sweep to say if there is any other law
that deals with this type of issue, this trumps it."
MS. BAKALAR responded she would say "that is a fair statutory
construction, yes."
9:24:41 AM
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the eighth of the fourteen proposed statutes [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.080. Marijuana Control Board. This statute
would permit the legislature to create a Marijuana
Control Board in the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development to assume the
duties of the ABC Board under AS 17.38.
MS. BAKALAR explained that currently the default administrative
agency to administer marijuana authorization in the state is the
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board. However, this bill
would let the legislature come back and create a separate board
just to deal with marijuana. The legislature would have to do
that as a secondary act; this statute does not, in and of
itself, create [a "Marijuana Control Board"], it creates
authority of the legislature to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether there is a fiscal note with
the bill for what [a "Marijuana Control Board"] would cost.
CHAIR COGHILL responded he thinks the word "may" in the bill is
how the fiscal note is not going to be attached to this.
MS. BAKALAR answered that some of her colleagues who will be
testifying later can speak to the details on the costs that
would be associated with the establishment of a separate board.
CHAIR COGHILL reported the Department of Revenue, as well as
other departments, will be presenting the fiscal and enforcement
impacts; Ms. Bakalar is presenting the sectional analysis.
9:26:27 AM
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the ninth of the fourteen proposed statutes [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.090. Rulemaking. This statute would require
the ABC Board to adopt regulations to implement AS
17.38 no later than nine months after the Act's
effective date. Generally, such regulations must
include regulations governing marijuana establishments
and cover such topics as: procedures subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act to apply for, receive,
and revoke the registration of a marijuana
establishment; a schedule of registration fees;
qualifications for registration; security requirements
and requirements to prevent the sale of marijuana to
persons under 21 years of age; labeling requirements,
advertising and display restrictions, and health and
safety standards for marijuana and marijuana products;
and civil penalties for failure to comply with the
regulations. This statute would provide that the ABC
board shall not require a consumer to present any
personal information other than a government-issued
identification to prove age at a retail marijuana
store, and that such a store shall not be required to
acquire personal information about consumers.
9:27:29 AM
CHAIR COGHILL understood the health and safety regulations would
be under either the ABC Board or, if the legislature so chooses,
under a new Marijuana Control Board.
MS. BAKALAR replied that is her understanding.
9:27:51 AM
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the tenth of the fourteen proposed statutes [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.100. Marijuana establishment registrations.
This statute would govern the application process for
registering a marijuana establishment. The statute
would vest this duty primarily in the ABC Board,
acting in conjunction with local governments as
applicable. The statute would impose various
timeframes for the processing of such applications.
The statute would provide that each registration must
specify where the establishment would operate, and
that books and records of such establishments would be
subject to the ABC Board's inspection.
MS. BAKALAR noted one of the aforementioned timeframes is that
the ABC Board cannot accept any applications for registration of
a marijuana establishment until one year from the proposed
effective date.
9:28:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, regarding proposed statutes AS 17.38.080,
Marijuana Control Board, and AS 17.38.090, Rulemaking, inquired
what the impact would be if the legislature did not act. For
example, what that would do to the entire bill and would it mean
the rest of the bill would go through without regulation.
MS. BAKALAR responded the bill would have to be voted up at the
election, at which point it would go into effect 90 days after
certification of the election. Under the constitution, a law
enacted by initiative becomes effective 90 days after
certification of the election. It is not subject to veto. It
cannot be repealed by the legislature within two years of its
effective date; however, it may be amended at any time. The
line between amendment and repeal is somewhat grey. The Alaska
Supreme Court has said that as long as amendments do not
eviscerate the spirit of the bill, they are considered
amendments as opposed to a repeal. For example, if this were
enacted at the ballot, the legislature could come in at any time
and tweak the bill in certain unsubstantial ways and within two
years could repeal it entirely.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether no action by the legislature
would be viewed as a "repeal."
CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that the ABC Board is
designated by default.
MS. BAKALAR confirmed that if the legislature does not act to
create a Marijuana Control Board, the ABC Board would be the
default board; a Marijuana Control Board would be at the
discretion of the legislature.
9:30:47 AM
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the eleventh and twelfth of the fourteen proposed statutes
[original punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.110. Local control. Generally, this statute
would allow a local government to: prohibit the
operation of a marijuana cultivation, manufacturing,
testing, or retail facility through the enactment of
an ordinance or through voter initiative; enact
ordinances to govern the time, place, and manner of
marijuana establishment operations; designate a local
regulatory authority to process applications to
register a marijuana establishment and create
procedures surrounding this application process
subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.
AS 17.38.120. Employers, driving, minors and control
of property. This statute provides that the Act is
not intended to: require any employer to permit or
accommodate the use, possession, transfer, display,
transportation, sale, or growth of marijuana in the
workplace; allow driving under the influence of
marijuana or supersede related laws; permit the
transfer of marijuana with or without remuneration to
a person under age 21; or prohibit a person, employer,
or any other entity who occupies, owns or controls
private property from prohibiting or controlling the
use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, or growth
of marijuana on that property.
CHAIR COGHILL surmised that for a person under 21 it would be
very similar to handling alcohol. A person under 21 could not
drive a delivery truck hauling this stuff, or retail it, or
wholesale it.
MS. BAKALAR replied that her understanding of the intent of the
bill, and the way it is written, is to regulate marijuana in a
way very similar to the way alcohol is regulated.
MS. BAKALAR continued paraphrasing from her June 11, 2013/May
16, 2013, letter to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, addressing
the thirteenth of the fourteen proposed statutes [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 17.38.130. Impact on medical marijuana law. This
statute would provide that nothing in the Act is
intended to limit the privileges or rights of a
medical marijuana patient or caregiver under AS 17.37.
9:33:10 AM
CHAIR COGHILL inquired whether members need to look at the
interplay with AS 17, medical marijuana. He asked whether there
is already a legal review available and whether this would
"exempt them and are there competing rights under this."
MS. BAKALAR responded she does not believe a separate side-by-
side comparison legal analysis of the current medical marijuana
and this initiative bill has been done. She offered to follow
up in this regard if the committees wish. However, she said she
thinks the idea is to harmonize them. She opined this statute
says that nothing in the initiative bill is intended to really
affect the medical marijuana provisions and they are supposed to
operate separately. Whether they actually do that, or if there
is conflict between the two, would require a closer analysis.
CHAIR COGHILL stated that, for him, the review would be to
determine whether there is equal treatment under the law and
whether that works for enforcement expectations and things like
that.
9:34:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed a scenario in which someone is
charged with a violation of this proposed act and his/her
defense is that what he/she was doing was within the scope of
the rights and duties under the Alaska Medical Marijuana Act.
He asked whether use of the Alaska Medical Marijuana Act would
be an affirmative defense with the burden of persuasion on the
defendant or would the only responsibility of the defendant be
to raise a "triable" issue, and the burden would be on the
prosecution to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
He said Ms. Bakalar could provide a written answer, explaining
House Judiciary Standing Committee members talked about this
theme a couple of days ago and are familiar with the difference.
MS. BAKALAR replied that to be able to properly answer this
question she will have to look closely at the medical marijuana
law and how it interplays with this statute. She said she would
follow up in this regard.
CHAIR COGHILL requested he receive this information about the
interplay in legal terms so it can be made available to the
public.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the aforementioned is just one
example for people who are unfamiliar with how this would work
and there may be other things that fall into the category of
whether or not it is an affirmative defense. For example, a
bill by the majority leader deals with someone coming across a
person who has overdosed on a narcotic and notifies the police.
The bill says the person cannot be prosecuted for possession in
that circumstance. There was expert testimony that it was not
an affirmative defense, it was that an issue had to be raised
and the burden remained on the prosecution to disprove that
beyond a reasonable doubt. It is important to know from a
judiciary point of view, he continued, how this is going to
interplay with the Alaska Medical Marijuana Act, but he does not
want to limit it to that because there may be other things that
fall into that category.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that the aforementioned is going way
deeper into the weeds than he had expected to go.
9:37:14 AM
MS. BAKALAR returned to her sectional analysis, addressing the
fourteenth of the fourteen proposed statutes. She said proposed
AS 17.38.900 defines the following 14 terms: board, consumer,
consumption, local government, local regulatory authority,
marijuana, marijuana accessories, marijuana cultivation
facility, marijuana establishment, marijuana product
manufacturing facility, marijuana products, marijuana testing
facility, retail marijuana store, and unreasonably
impracticable.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that definitions have a huge impact on
how a law actually works, so is very important to understand
those definitions.
MS. BAKALAR turned to proposed Section 2 of the bill, which
would add a new chapter, AS 43.61, Excise Tax on Marijuana, to
the Alaska Statutes. She reviewed the three provisions in
Section 2 by paraphrasing from her June 11/May 16, 2013, letter
to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell, written as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 43.61.010. Marijuana tax. This statute would impose
a $50 per ounce (or proportionate part) excise tax on
the sale or transfer of marijuana from a marijuana
cultivation facility to a retail marijuana store or
marijuana product manufacturing facility. The
marijuana cultivation facility would pay the tax. The
Department of Revenue could exempt certain parts of
the marijuana plant from the tax or could establish a
lower rate for certain parts of the plant.
AS 43.61.020. Monthly statement and payments. This
statute would require each marijuana cultivation
facility to send monthly tax statements and payments
to the Department of Revenue based on the amount of
marijuana sold or transferred to retail marijuana
stores and marijuana product manufacturing facilities
during the preceding month.
AS 43.61.030. Administration and enforcement of tax.
This statute would subject a marijuana cultivation
facility to the civil penalties under AS 43.05.220 for
delinquent payments under the Act and allow for the
revocation of a delinquent facility's registration
pursuant to regulations adopted under the Act.
9:39:32 AM
MS. BAKALAR moved to proposed Section 3, the final section of
the bill, explaining it is a standard severability clause which
provides that if any part of the proposed act is found invalid,
the remainder would not be affected.
CHAIR COGHILL understood that if there were a court case on
implementation of a portion of this bill and that portion was
found either inordinate or unconstitutional, the rest of the
bill would stay intact.
MS. BAKALAR responded correct.
MS. BAKALAR noted for the record that, under the Alaska
Constitution, this petition would be void if this body enacts a
measure that is substantially the same as the initiative bill
before the primary election on 8/19/14. Whether in fact the
legislature has done that is a separate analysis - what
constitutes substantially similar legislation as compared to an
initiative bill is a highly fact-sensitive inquiry and there is
Alaska Supreme Court case law on that.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT commented that $50 per ounce is easy when
talking about the actual weight of the plant itself. He asked
whether there is an understanding of how to address when an
extract or oils are taken and utilized separately from smoking
the plant. He understood changes had to be made to the related
California bill when the oils began being placed in foodstuffs.
He asked how Alaska would tax that, saying that if this law
exists he wants to ensure that Alaska gets all its money.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested the Department of Revenue speak to this
when it addresses the committee.
MS. BAKALAR said she would definitely defer to her colleagues at
the Department of Revenue. However, she pointed out, there is a
definition of marijuana in the statute that would provide some
guidance in this regard.
CHAIR COGHILL noted the sectional analysis provided by Ms.
Bakalar showed that this proposed bill has highly descriptive
and somewhat complex parts to it.
9:42:26 AM
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue, said he will be speaking to the cost
impacts that the proposed act to tax and regulate the
production, sale and use of marijuana would have to the
Department of Revenue (DOR). Approval of the initiative by the
voters would require DOR to incur additional costs to
effectively implement it. If approved by a majority of
qualified voters, it is presumed that this initiative would take
effect 30 days after approval. The estimated cost to DOR for
the implementation of this initiative is between $650,000 and
$800,000. Recurring annual costs are estimated at approximately
$300,000. The estimated costs can be broken down into two
categories: personal services of approximately $300,000 and
contractual services of between $350,000 and $500,000.
Responding to Chair Coghill, he confirmed that the contractual
services would be a one-time cost.
MR. TANGEMAN stated that on the personnel side, DOR estimates it
will need to create at least three new positions to oversee the
new excise tax imposed by this initiative, at a cost of about
$300,000. To assist with the administration and collection of
the new excise tax, DOR would need at least one tax auditor III,
one tax technician II, and one investigator III position to
fulfill the needs of a new tax program. This cost is similar to
the cost that is currently incurred by DOR to administer other
similar types of excise taxes and would be recurring annually
for DOR. So, while the subject matter is quite different than
what DOR is used to dealing with, it is to DOR just another
excise tax.
MR. TANGEMAN said that on the contractual services side, DOR
estimates it will incur a one-time additional expense of
approximately up to $500,000 for systems configuration. In
August 2014, DOR will have completed the configuring of its
excise tax portion of its new tax revenue management system
(TRMS). If this initiative is approved by the voters, it will
require DOR and its information system contractors to
reconfigure the system to add this new excise tax. Currently,
DOR has 22 tax types and this would be an additional tax type
that DOR would be adding to the system.
9:46:02 AM
CHAIR COGHILL understood the collection style would be about the
same, so it would really be an addition in a computer line as
well as someone to monitor that particular system. He inquired
whether enforcement under this law would be different than that
under other excise taxes.
MR. TANGEMAN responded [enforcement] would be fairly similar; it
is just another type of an excise tax. There is a criminal
investigations unit and it would be a team effort with DOR's
sister agencies.
MR. TANGEMAN related it was DOR's contractors who supplied the
estimated range of $350,000 to $500,000 and it would be
contingent on the timeline of how quickly it would need to be
initiated. He qualified that the aforementioned estimates
represent a minimum cost, given the numerous uncertainties
around the referendum and what all the effects of its passage
would be.
MR. TANGEMAN said new ground is being broken regarding the
revenue side of the discussion. While many folks would like to
look at what is happening in Colorado and Washington - the only
other states that have recently undertaken this - DOR does not
see it as being as simple as comparing numbers on a head count
basis. For example, people can drive from surrounding states to
Colorado and California and the populations there are much
bigger. Alaska is much more secluded, so it is not going to be
an apples-to-apples comparison. He understood that legislators
do not necessarily like the word "indeterminate" when it comes
to discussing revenues, but maintained it truly is very
indeterminate when it comes to a new system like this.
9:48:06 AM
CHAIR COGHILL, regarding the tax under proposed AS 43.61.010,
surmised the department being talked about is the Department of
Revenue. He inquired whether it would be DOR, the ABC Board, or
the new marijuana board that could exempt certain [parts of the
plant] from the excise tax. He understood the monthly statement
would be submitted to DOR.
MR. TANGEMAN replied he is unsure regarding the aforementioned.
CHAIR COGHILL surmised that because proposed AS 43.61.020 is a
taxation issue it would go to the Department of Revenue.
MR. TANGEMAN answered correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired whether an estimate of the
income to the state would be forthcoming.
MR. TANGEMAN deferred to Mr. Fonder of the Tax Division to speak
to the revenue side, but reiterated it is very indeterminate.
9:50:01 AM
MATT FONDER, Director, Anchorage Office, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), responded it is very difficult to
determine what the revenue in tax will be. However, he
continued, at [a tax rate of] $50 an ounce, the sale of 100,000
ounces would create $5 million in revenue. The sale of 300,000
ounces, which is roughly one ounce for every other person in
Alaska every year, would create $15 million in revenue. It is
hard to tell what the consumption rates would be, but if the
initiative passes, the division will do its due diligence and
dig into that as much as it can.
MR. FONDER addressed Chair Coghill's earlier question regarding
the department under AS 43.61.010. He explained that because
this statute would be under Title 43 and Title 43 is the
Department of Revenue, any references to the department in Title
43 are to DOR.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether this will also have an
impact on local governments insofar as many of them have sales
taxes.
MR. TANGEMAN replied he does not believe this addresses revenue
sharing or sales tax per se.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted the City and Borough of Juneau
imposes a sales tax. He inquired whether this would be taxable
and provide revenue for the local government.
MR. TANGEMAN deferred to the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted Alaska does not have a statewide
sales tax. He asked whether this would apply to someone
acquiring marijuana via the Internet and, if so, whether that
would be additional revenue and how would it be collected.
MR. TANGEMAN deferred to the Department of Law.
9:53:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT requested he be able to ask the Department
of Revenue the question he earlier asked the Department of Law.
Normally, it is the leaf that is thought about. He asked what
happens when [the taxable products are] the oils, extracts, and
resins.
MR. TANGEMAN answered DOR is taking the initiative at face value
and not drilling down to what might be. So, it is $50 for the
sale of an ounce of marijuana.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT commented he does not know that that
really answers it and that is part of the ambiguity there.
MR. TANGEMAN responded the sale is from the cultivation to the
retailer and that is where the tax takes place.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said that helps.
CHAIR COGHILL interjected it might also come into some of the
regulatory issues that will come forward under the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED).
9:54:55 AM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, first noted
that the Alaska Court System takes no position on the
initiative. Also, because of the lack of experience and so many
unknowns with the initiative, the Alaska Court System cannot say
with any definiteness whatsoever what any fiscal impact will be
to the courts. She has not seen any reports from other states
about the impact on the courts from changing their marijuana
laws. It is truly an indeterminate fiscal impact on the courts
as well as the other agencies.
MS. MEADE noted she has been asked to provide the numbers the
court currently sees for marijuana in the state and what it
means for the court system. Of course, that usually comes up
under criminal cases. Alaska has a number of statutes that
criminalize possession, use, delivery, and sale of marijuana in
different amounts. Though the initiative does not delete any
criminal statutes, presumably those would no longer be
prosecuted because of language in the initiative regarding
"notwithstanding any other laws." The criminal laws disallowing
the possession of marijuana would presumably no longer be in
effect.
MS. MEADE, to give a sense of what is seen in the court system
today, related that most of the cases with a charge having to do
with marijuana come as class B misdemeanors. Marijuana is a
schedule VIA controlled substance, meaning it is determined to
have the lowest degree of danger or probable danger to a person
or the public. A schedule VIA drug is usually treated in a much
less severe manner than some other drugs. About 1,200 cases
were filed last year that had something to do with marijuana,
and that has been steady. A case count was looked at for the
last two years. Most of the 800 cases filed came in under AS
11.71.060(a)(1), Use or display of marijuana. She noted that
half of those did not end up with a conviction and said that is
true of almost all the marijuana cases for the statistics that
were gathered. The number of cases filed is about double of the
number of cases that are disposed with a conviction. So it
could be said that many are dismissed, or perhaps plea-
bargained, or somehow resolved in a way that does not result in
a conviction for the person.
9:58:30 AM
MS. MEADE reported that the next largest category after the use
of marijuana is possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.
About 350 cases were filed and about half of those ended up with
a conviction. She said her understanding of the current law is
that a person can possess in one's own home less than one ounce.
Therefore, those 350 cases were because the marijuana was
discovered by a law enforcement officer in a situation such as
someone's pocket during a traffic stop or somehow otherwise out
of the home. Again, most of these are going to be class B
misdemeanors with a maximum penalty of up to 90 days in jail.
She understood that many of these cases are charged on a
citation and are handled fairly rapidly by the court system.
She added that about 150 cases come in as class A misdemeanor,
which is the possession of one ounce or more of marijuana or the
sale of less than an ounce of marijuana.
MS. MEADE further reported that last year there were about forty
class C felony cases, which is when someone possesses twenty-
five or more cannabis plants, and there were twelve class B
felony cases, which is delivery of marijuana to a minor and the
age difference between the seller and minor is three or more
years.
10:00:19 AM
MS. MEADE, noting the aforementioned is what the court system
sees now, stated she does not think it fair to conclude that
those cases would all go away because her understanding of the
initiative is that those actions by someone under 21 would still
be illegal and she does not know how many of those 1,200
marijuana cases were charged against people under 21. Also,
consumption in public would still be illegal. One could assume
Alaska would have fewer criminal cases filed for possession,
sale, and delivery of marijuana and marijuana products.
MS. MEADE said it would be quite remote that there could be an
impact on the court system with tax litigation by the Department
of Revenue. Only a few cases have to do with the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board and these would be similar.
MS. MEADE, qualifying the following statement is somewhat
speculative, said presumably marijuana usage would increase, and
though difficult to predict, there could be an increase in
driving under the influence (DUI) arrests and case filings.
Unlike DUI cases where alcohol is involved and which has a
fairly reliable breath test that results in a measure of
impairment and a presumption if the measure is above 0.08
percent, driving under the influence of drugs is less numbers-
driven and could lead to more trials where the facts would have
to be fleshed out. She reiterated that this is very speculative
and said she cannot say much more than that about the impact on
the court system.
10:02:17 AM
CHAIR COGHILL offered his appreciation to Ms. Meade and said the
members will be asking questions about how that might work
regulatory-wise and enforcement-wise. While the court system
does not get to decide what ends up at its door, the committees
are trying to figure this out.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to how many of the cases that
go to court and have convictions result in jail time. He said
this information could be provided later and requested that it
be broken down by felony and some of the lesser charges.
MS. MEADE agreed to provide a chart of numbers of each of the
case filings that the court system has under the different
statutes and their classifications.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, regarding driving under the influence and
the burden of proof, asked whether there is an understanding of
what will need to be implemented for how to handle things when
an individual is driving under the influence, and especially if
that person hurts someone. He understood from Colorado's
experience that there is quite a bit of ambiguity with this.
MS. MEADE responded that Alaska's current statute for driving
under the influence does cover being under the influence of
drugs. She has seen DUI cases where the defendant is alleged to
be under the influence of narcotics or other drugs. Courts do
handle those and she does not know that it is difficult other
than there is not an absolute number like with alcohol where a
number of 0.08 percent is the presumption that the person is
impaired. She understood that with drugs, because there is not
a definitive test, a line, or a blood marker, it comes down to
facts and more of a question for the judge and jury to determine
whether the person was impaired.
CHAIR COGHILL observed that proposed AS 17.38.120 of the bill
states, "Nothing in this chapter is intended to allow driving
under the influence of marijuana ...." So, it would be up to
the legislature to come up with the penalty.
10:06:11 AM
RONALD TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner -
Anchorage, Department of Corrections, testified that the
Department of Corrections (DOC) reviewed the initiative and does
not see that it will have any impact for DOC.
CHAIR COGHILL understood Mr. Taylor to be saying the initiative
will not have a direct fiscal impact [on the Department of
Corrections].
MR. TAYLOR responded there is none that the department can see.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what the fiscal impact is under present law
to the Department of Corrections.
MR. TAYLOR replied he does not know that DOC has looked at that,
but offered to do an analysis for members. He said there are
few cases coming through the department that are just straight
marijuana cases; oftentimes they are in conjunction with other
drugs or other types of offenses. The department books offenses
through the legal definitions, so whatever it comes in is how
the department would book it. Responding further to Chair
Coghill, he confirmed there would be no significant impact to
the Department of Corrections.
10:07:40 AM
L. DIANE CASTO, Prevention & Early Intervention Manager,
Prevention & Early Intervention Section, Division of Behavioral
Health, Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), stated
many impact are unknown because this would be a fundamental
change in the Alaska Statutes and the work that the department
does. The initiative language primarily focuses on the process
and procedures necessary to establish the taxation and
regulation of the production, sale, and use of marijuana. The
actual initiative itself does not have an impact on the
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS). The department
will not be part of that piece of the initiative structure.
MS. CASTO noted, however, that the medical marijuana piece of
the initiative could potentially impact DHSS. Currently, the
operational part of medical marijuana, the issuance of a card to
receive medical marijuana, is within the Division of Public
Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics. It is unknown at this point
how that will look. From being in touch with her colleagues in
Washington and Colorado, Ms. Casto said she knows those states
have discussed how to bring together their issues of
recreational marijuana and medical marijuana.
10:09:58 AM
MS. CASTO specified there is evidence that downstream there will
be health and social service consequences of implementing the
initiative. Because the initiative presents a relatively
untested concept, it is difficult to know what that impact might
be. The department has prepared an estimate based on research
on other states' experiences and an extrapolation of expenses
the department incurs providing similar substance-related
services related to alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs. She
addressed the assumptions used by the department for making
these estimates. She said the fiscal impact will directly
relate to how many additional people begin using marijuana, how
many current users increase their use, and how many have
developed a dependency on marijuana and will need services, such
as treatment services. These numbers are unknown, but are
things DHSS will be looking for. The consequences and outcome
of marijuana use will likely create a significant potential
increased cost for physical and behavioral health care, child
welfare services, educational systems, employers, public safety,
criminal justice, community health, and other aspects of state
and local government. However, there are many unknowns.
10:11:42 AM
MS. CASTO stated she has been exploring this issue because it
does have significant potential impact. She has relied upon a
book that has a neutral approach to this issue, giving the pros
and cons of both sides [the title of the book was not provided].
She read the following: "There is more to the issue than a
simple yes or no on a survey or a ballot. Marijuana
legalization turns out not to be a single question, but a whole
collection of questions." She agreed this is the case and
continued quoting from the book the following: "Legalization of
marijuana in whatever form would create both good and bad
effects and the magnitude of those effects are uncertain." Ms.
Casto concluded that even if the facts were known with
certainty, which they cannot be because this is such a profound
policy change, there is no objective way of weighting those
gains and harms.
MS. CASTO specified Alaska's marijuana use rate is 11 percent,
the highest rate in the U.S. The national rate was 6.4 percent
prior to the legalization of marijuana in Washington and
Colorado. While there are unknowns regarding the impact of
developing a system of legal marijuana production, sale, and
use, a number of entities have developed "guesstimates." One
guesstimate in the aforementioned book is that legalization
would likely double or triple consumption. She cautioned that
Alaska, unlike other states, already has some legalization so
the department projects a lesser increase than doubling or
tripling.
10:13:46 AM
MS. CASTO said it is important to remember when talking about
developing a business of marijuana that there are other aspects
to it, just as with alcohol. Those aspects are public health
and public safety, which is not the case with something like a
grocery store. So, it is not just "business as usual," it is a
unique commodity. Research, primarily with alcohol, is very
clear that use may increase when it is easily accessible and
widely acceptable and available, particularly by people under
21. When young people perceive it as not harmful, and it is
legal, seen as a medical product, seen in food products, or
being sold on the corner, how dangerous can it be? The
department anticipates seeing a decrease in the perception of
harm, which research shows will result in an increase in use.
Research shows that the probability of dependency is
significantly increased for those who begin using marijuana
before the age of 25 years. Nationally, 97 percent of new users
are 24 years or younger and that is another concern for the
department. While the proposed law says marijuana cannot be
purchased and used by someone under 21, it is known that people
under 21 get and use tobacco and alcohol products.
10:15:59 AM
MS. CASTO said the primary areas of concern for DHSS are related
to physical health, behavioral health, child protection
services, and youth services. These issues are also among
adults. She stressed these issues are not definitive, but have
some levels of experience, research, and initial data to say
that these are areas where increased consequences may be seen.
Research talks about physical health consequences that include
respiratory symptoms, increased heart rate, and increased
hospital emergency department admissions. She learned from a
recent talk with a Colorado pediatrician that Colorado has seen
a significant increase of children coming to the emergency
department for ingesting marijuana products, which is something
that will need to be paid attention to in Alaska. She qualified
she is not saying these things will happen, but rather these are
things her department is looking at.
CHAIR COGHILL noted the whole purpose of this meeting is to put
the questions on the table that need to be thought about by
society.
MS. CASTO added there is also fetal impact related to prenatal
exposure. While the data is not clear, it is clear enough to
say there should be concern and attention paid to this.
10:17:32 AM
MS. CASTO reported that behavioral health consequences include
increased dependency, increased need for treatment, and
increased mental health episodes such as hallucinations and
paranoia. Initial data shows possible links between marijuana
and some psychoses and schizophrenia. The data is very limited
so she is not implying that these are solid findings, but it
should be thought about. As a worker in this field and as a
mother and grandmother, she has concerns about the fairly new
and significant data on brain development and function that is
coming from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Data is
showing that persistent and consistent marijuana use by youth
and young adults, whose brains are not yet fully developed,
makes them much more susceptible to negative impacts of
marijuana - which are also known with alcohol - including
deficits in learning and memory. She referred to a report
titled "Persistent Marijuana Use Among Youth" [report not
provided] shows a reduction of intelligence quotient (IQ) by as
much as eight points. While these are not definitive, she
reiterated, they are beginning to show this relationship.
Regarding child welfare, she related that Colorado has seen some
increase in child neglect and the issues of children getting
access to these products that are in the home with parents who
are using marijuana and marijuana food products. It is hard for
a child to resist a cupcake or cookie which may be laced with
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
10:19:40 AM
MS. CASTO said DHSS anticipates some increase from the
legalization of production, sale, and use of marijuana, but she
qualified that these are total guesstimates. The department
ranges estimates from zero cost, which is not anticipated, up to
perhaps $2.8 million. The department used a percentage of
increase of 5-20 percent. She reiterated that nationally it is
being said a doubling or tripling of use, but the department
does not anticipate that will be the case in Alaska. These
projected impacts are looking at increased treatment, mental
health services, physical health services through public health
and primary care providers, and a potential increase in Medicaid
cost to cover some of those treatment costs. The department has
already started and will continue doing more outreach in
prevention education related to marijuana for young people and
parents of younger children, so they understand the impacts of
marijuana. Other projected impacts are increased child
protective services and potentially increased juvenile justice
costs. Another area is human resource activities and how is
this going to impact the workforce. She concluded her
presentation saying that DHSS will be doing a lot more
investigation and she will be staying in close touch with her
colleagues in Colorado and Washington.
MS. CASTO addressed Representative Pruitt's earlier question
about driving under the influence of a drug. She noted the
retail sale of marijuana does not start in Washington until July
1, 2014, but it is now legal to smoke and to use. Washington
has found that the percentage of total driving cases confirming
positive for THC was 18.2 in 2009 and 24.9 in 2013. The
percentage of total driving cases confirming positive for
carboxy-THC (THC-COOH), which indicates marijuana use, was 26.3
in 2009 and 40.0 in 2013. She said DHSS will be keeping close
tabs on what is happening in Washington and Colorado so it can
make the best decisions and assumptions about the impact that
this proposed act is going to have on the State of Alaska.
10:24:11 AM
JEANNE MUNGLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED), thanked members for the opportunity to provide the
estimated cost to her department. If the initiative passes, she
said, the responsibility for controlling marijuana will lie with
the ABC Board until or unless a Marijuana Control Board is
established by the legislature within DCCED. Using information
available from Colorado and Washington and other sources, DCCED
has identified potential costs to implement this initiative of
$1.5 million in the first year to $1.4 million in the second
year. However, there are numerous unknowns in the
implementation of this initiative. For example, it is unknown
whether the legislature will create a Marijuana Control Board
within DCCED or implement under the ABC Board. The cost
estimates as presented here reflect the administrative structure
of the ABC Board.
MS. MUNGLE said the initiative requires the ABC Board to adopt
regulations and implement the law no later than nine months
after the initiative is approved. To achieve this, and similar
to Colorado and Washington's implementation efforts, the cost
estimates include the establishment of a taskforce to represent
major stakeholders. A taskforce would be an effective method to
facilitate an expedient and comprehensive gear-up of the tax and
regulatory framework described in the initiative.
10:25:53 AM
MS. MUNGLE provided DCCED's cost estimates based on the
information to date. Personal services would be $107,800 in the
first year for a program coordinator to facilitate, coordinate,
and document taskforce activity and for the long-term program
planning and development. Cost in the second year will be
$847,000 because additional staff will be needed to regulate the
industry, including two business licensing examiners, five
investigators, and an administrative officer. She noted this is
based on the ABC Board's current administrative structure.
Travel within the first year would be $16,600 to cover taskforce
travel and per diem. In the second year, $119,900 will cover
board member travel, staff travel, and compliance check travel.
Board travel is estimated based on extending the current ABC
Board meetings by one additional day to address the marijuana
industry. Equipment, office space, and supplies are estimated
at $27,000 in the first year and $188,140 in the second year for
the setup costs, office space, and various supplies. Contracts
and services are estimated at $1.4 million in the first year and
include funds for contracting for a taskforce report on
implementation, and a regulation study to assist in defining
legal policy and procedural issues that need to be resolved, and
to offer proposals for executive and legislative action. The
expedited regulations process with the Department of Law would
also be part of that figure in order to achieve the nine-month
implementation requirement from the effective date. In
addition, there would be database development and maintenance
for the licensing enforcement of the program. In the second
year, $258,100 will cover database maintenance, vehicles to
perform investigations across the state, and ongoing legal cost
with the Department of Law.
MS. MUNGLE, in response to Representative Pruitt, reiterated
that the total cost to implement the initiative would be $1.5
million in the first year and $1.4 million in the second year.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that the ABC Board gets quite a
responsibility out of this. It would have to start regulations,
would define some things, and would also have to define health
and safety standards, all of which are no small task.
10:28:57 AM
SHIRLEY COTE, Executive Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) Board, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED), noted that the initiative provides that the
responsibility of the control of marijuana would lie with the
ABC Board unless the legislature creates a Marijuana Control
Board. She said the ABC Board is "in the loop" and staying
informed.
MS. COTE pointed out that, like the control of alcoholic
beverages, the board will be responsible for licensing and the
enforcement of the statutes and regulations. Regulation of
marijuana will require not only the development of regulations
similar to those that govern the sale and use of alcohol, but
because the sale and use of marijuana is against federal law,
the state will have to take on new oversight roles that the
federal government provides for alcohol. A framework for
regulation would have to be created. If the initiative passes,
regulations would have to be adopted to determine eligibility
for licensing, how many licenses would be issued in particular
populated areas, and who would be eligible to obtain a license.
MS. COTE said other considerations would be location
restrictions, such as proximity to schools and churches, and
security issues, such as how these locations are going to be
held secure. Packaging, labeling, testing standards, and
serving sizes are just a few of the subjects of regulation that
would need to be written. As with alcohol, local governing
bodies under the initiative may choose to enact their own
ordinances, as is the case for local option for alcohol. The
ABC Board would need to work with those communities to establish
controls that they deem in the best interest of their community.
10:31:05 AM
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that what Ms. Cote said is a huge issue
and some of those [issues] will require going to federal codes
for some of the definitions. Starting at 90 days, he inquired
whether the expected regulatory buildup would be within a year
or two years.
MS. COTE replied the ABC Board should have the regulations
online within nine months of enactment.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that the health and safety standards are
what caught his attention because they are a little different
than what the ABC Board has had to do with alcohol. He surmised
the board would go to other jurisdictions that have devised some
kind of health and safety standard.
MS. COTE responded there are quite a few unknowns at this point.
The board is doing quite a bit of research with the intention of
being prepared. As of today, however, the board is unsure which
department will be responsible for the safety standards and how
those safety standards would be implemented.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that these are the things committee
members want the people of Alaska to be thinking through. For
example, if the committees were debating this as a bill, those
would be the things the committees would dig into: How
something will work; What can be done about it; Who will devise
them; The cost for devising them.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked whether thought has been given to
whether it is better to use the ABC Board or to create a
Marijuana Control Board.
MS. COTE answered the ABC Board has not formed any kind of an
opinion as to whether the regulation of marijuana should be
under the ABC Board or if a Marijuana Control Board should be
encouraged. The ABC Board is poised and ready to take on the
responsibility.
CHAIR COGHILL added that is something the citizens get to decide
and the legislature will have to decide along the way as well.
If the initiative passes, the ABC Board is where it starts and
it may stay there if the legislature is slow to act.
10:33:59 AM
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified the
ballot initiative, as written, does not directly require
anything of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC);
the initiative puts all of the powers, duties, and
responsibilities to DCCED. Normally, DEC has the responsibility
to regulate food and food products, so marijuana, if considered
a food, would normally fall under those provisions. However,
the proposed law puts the responsibility for regulating
marijuana, including labeling and health and safety regulations,
with the ABC Board.
MS. BUSSE FLOYD explained that if additional food establishments
are opened to create marijuana products, such as marijuana
bakeries, and depending on how many additional food facilities
begin operation, the Food Safety & Sanitation Program within DEC
would need an additional environmental health officer to review
sanitation plans and conduct sanitation inspections for the
increased facilities. That would require approximately one
full-time position at a total cost of [$136,900], which includes
all contractual travel and supply expenses. This estimate is
based on costs during fiscal year 2014 (FY 14) and does not
reflect any increases that would occur.
MS. BUSSE FLOYD said another area that would possibly concern
DEC is the need for the Environmental Health Laboratory to
certify laboratories that perform marijuana testing. That would
require DEC to develop standards and criteria for independent
testing and certification of marijuana testing facilities and
then regulating those. If that occurred, the laboratory would
need an additional laboratory certification officer. The
department currently does similar work for drinking water
laboratories and contaminated site laboratories. This would add
marijuana testing labs to that, along with an associated
expense.
MS. BUSSE FLOYD pointed out that if the Food Safety & Sanitation
Program becomes involved once standards are in place, then the
food itself needs to be processed under sanitary standards like
any other food. However, this is food with a drug effect, so if
it is considered a drug it would probably fall under the
Department of Health and Social Services. She further pointed
out that dietary substances are not currently regulated by DEC
and that there are no federal standards of identity or labeling
requirements and no consumer protection standards concerning
what would allow a person to make a claim that he/she is
producing a product that contains marijuana.
10:37:34 AM
MS. BUSSE FLOYD, in response to Representative Pruitt about the
labeling of food products containing marijuana, explained that
according to the proposed changes in the initiative, the
Marijuana Control Board or DCCED would have to create labeling
requirements. Currently there are no federal requirements, so
it would be up to the ABC Board or the Marijuana Control Board
to set those standards for health and safety regulations and
standards.
CHAIR COGHILL said that is what he was asking about earlier -
that the state would probably have to come up with some health
and safety standards. He offered his belief that these will be
hard to get to and will be highly contested.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted the initiative will have to be
implemented if it passes. While it will not be effective on the
date it passes, the legislature will not be in session for a
while. He requested testimony at some point on how this would
likely work because otherwise it may sound to the public like an
impossible situation. He surmised there must be a way for the
administration to have a contingency if the initiative does pass
and what can be done by executive order.
CHAIR COGHILL replied this is directive by the people; if they
implement it the department is under obligation to implement.
He guessed the legislature could debate the cost but would be
under direction to implement it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he was not thinking so much of the
cost, but of who would do it.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested the Department of Law may be best for
answering the question of what the legislature would be mandated
to do. However, he continued, it is very clear at this point
that DCCED, under the ABC Board, would be directed to implement
the whole range of standards listed and the legislature would be
directed to somehow fund those. Once the people have spoken it
would be hard [for the legislature] not to do that. Then it
would be the whole range of everything from requirements of
inspecting to what it would like for enforcing a fine. He said
the initiative sponsor will be testifying after the agencies and
the sponsor may be able to tell the members what the sponsor's
expectation is. After that, the Department of Law can
summarize.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented it is helpful to have all of
this on the record for the public to be able to see.
CHAIR COGHILL said he hopes the public will think about the
questions and information that is being put on the table today.
10:42:33 AM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, stated the cost estimate prepared
by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is based on several
assumptions. The first assumption is that the legalization of
marijuana will lead to increased demand and usage, and to a
consequent increase in the number of people driving while under
the influence of this drug.
CHAIR COGHILL interjected that one question is how that will be
tested.
MS. HOWELL continued her presentation, stating the second
assumption is that the legalization of marijuana will not
eliminate the illegal, commercial marijuana growing operations.
The department anticipates those will continue to exist,
skirting taxes and regulation in order to make the maximum
profit. Due to the more potent levels of THC in Alaska-grown
marijuana, the out-of-state demand for the drug is currently
significant and legalization could result in the increased
potential for Alaska's legally-grown marijuana to be illegally
diverted and exported outside of the state. Therefore, the
estimated costs to DPS are $1.4 million for the first year and
$1.2 million for the second and subsequent years. These costs
are associated with the following: 1) The number of
investigator positions in the Statewide Drug Enforcement Unit
would be increased to target the illegal diversion and
exportation of marijuana that is lawfully cultivated in Alaska.
These positions would also work with DCCED's investigators
through the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, or in a subsequent
Marijuana Control Board that is created, on investigations into
the criminal activity that is associated with the regulation of
the marijuana industry. 2) More DPS troopers would be required
to receive drug recognition expert certification. This is tied
to the DUI enforcement and would enhance the troopers' abilities
to detect drivers impaired by marijuana. 3) A public education
and awareness campaign of the dangers of driving under the
influence of marijuana would be launched, similar to what
Colorado has recently done. 4) The number of samples being sent
out for toxicology analysis to detect the presence of marijuana
in blood for those suspected DUI cases would be increased.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for the timeframe and credibility issues
related to toxicology reporting.
MS. HOWELL answered that currently any driver suspected of being
under the influence, for example during a traffic stop, will be
given a series of field sobriety tests and questions. If the
driver is suspected of being impaired by a substance such as
marijuana, the officer can apply for a search warrant to obtain
a blood and/or urine sample. There is currently no field test
similar to a breath alcohol test to determine whether someone is
under the influence of marijuana. The state crime lab does not
actually provide the analysis of drugs in blood or urine, those
toxicology samples are sent to the Washington State Patrol
Toxicology Lab. The Washington lab provides the analysis as
well as the expert testimony should those cases go to trial.
10:47:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to whether in designing the
new crime lab there has been any planning for future expansion
of testing for [marijuana].
MS. HOWELL responded yes, there is currently "shelled out space"
available to expand should the lab branch out into doing in-
state toxicology testing. However, she noted, it is more cost-
effective to send those samples to the Washington State
toxicology lab. That is done through a grant that DPS receives
through the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), Highway Safety Office. The contract is on a per-
sample basis, which is why DPS expects an increase in that
contractual cost.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what the suspicion and probable cause is for
a DUI in a particular case that is going to be tested for
sampling.
10:48:10 AM
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL, Sergeant, Statewide Drug Enforcement Unit
(SDEU), Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), qualified that he has not done a DUI for about 10
years because he has been in the drug unit for quite a while and
was in Western Alaska before that. He said a DUI investigation
takes people through some standardized field tests. Based on
the way a person passes or fails those standardized field tests,
the trooper makes a decision on whether the person is too
impaired to be on the road.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked how this would work given that
marijuana would be legal in Alaska but illegal with the
federal government.
SERGEANT RUSSELL provided an example to answer the
question. He said the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
(USPIS) comes to Southeast Alaska once a month to help DPS
do interdiction at the U.S. Post Offices. Marijuana is
always found, sometimes up to 30 pounds. He said he thinks
that if an ounce or less was seized, DPS would be inclined
to give it to USPIS to handle, which normally means
disposing of it at one of its centralized areas. He said
he thinks it would be that easy to just defer to USPIS and
not accept cases like DPS has in the past.
CHAIR COGHILL understood that currently under local control
laws [for alcohol] in Alaska, communities can choose to be
damp or dry. He inquired as to how marijuana would work
under local control; for example, whether a Village Public
Safety Officer (VPSO) do something different than what
Sergeant Russell would do.
SERGEANT RUSSELL deferred to his supervisor.
CHAIR COGHILL said these questions [need to be asked]. A
tiered system would be created here - a statewide thing
that has allowed some local control, except there are some
things that the local control does not get. He understood
one thing that a DPS officer currently does is count the
number of plants. He offered his belief that the
initiative has some of the same categorization for the
number of plants. He surmised there was nothing new or
unusual in the initiative and DPS would still be able to
count and weigh marijuana plants in the same way as today.
SERGEANT RUSSELL responded he did not [see anything new or
unusual] and it would be like now - just counting the
plants. He understood the proposed law is for six plants,
with three mature.
CHAIR COGHILL understood that is changing the level.
SERGEANT RUSSELL replied yes.
10:52:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN recalled a previous witness stating a
cost to the state of $1.5 million. He asked whether the
figure mentioned by DPS is in addition to the $1.5 million
mentioned previously, or is part of the $1.5 million.
MS. HOWELL responded it is in addition to that.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN calculated the cost would therefore be
almost $3 million. He posed a scenario in which an officer
pulls someone over who appears to be driving impaired.
With alcohol, the field sobriety test probably provides 99
percent certainty that the person is actually intoxicated.
However, there is no field sobriety test for marijuana. He
asked what liability an officer has if a person is arrested
or cited for driving under the intoxication of marijuana
and it turns out that the person was not intoxicated with
marijuana. He surmised there would be a secondary charge,
such as speeding or improper lane changing, that would
provide a backup to preclude a false arrest.
SERGEANT RUSSEL answered that his understanding is if an
officer does his/her job in good faith and follows through
the officer will be okay under the law. For example, he
feels comfortable that his bosses at Alaska State Troopers
would support him. If an officer did have someone for whom
the officer is unsure but has the feeling the person is
under the influence of something, that is exactly when the
officer would call in a drug recognition expert who has
gone through the training, and could do an in-depth
investigation of the person and determine whether that
person is under the influence of marijuana or another
illegal drug.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he is talking about the cop on the
street that pulls somebody over. He presumed the expert
would not come to the site of arrest and that the person
would have to be brought to the station.
MS. HOWELL clarified that the drug recognition expert
certification is for patrol troopers, so DPS would want to
have as many of its patrol troopers as possible certified
as drug recognition experts so they can conduct detailed
field testing on the spot.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what some of the interplay is between
DPS and federal drug enforcement agents and whether DPS is
flexible. If the initiative passes there will be some
disparity between the federal law and state law. He
understood DPS has memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with
federal law enforcement.
MS. HOWELL responded the Alaska State Troopers receive a
federal grant from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) specifically for marijuana eradication efforts. How
that federal grant will be impacted should the initiative
become law is yet to be known. It could potentially have
an impact on the federal funds that the state receives
specifically for the purpose of marijuana eradication and
suppression efforts. As well, marijuana would still be
illegal under federal law, although there is the
relationship that Sergeant Russell has with the federal law
enforcement partners in drug enforcement in Alaska. How
those relationships will be affected remains to be seen.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT inquired whether DPS's understanding
of this legislation is that localities could ban marijuana
sale, and marijuana facilities, but localities could not
ban personal possession.
SERGEANT RUSSELL replied it would be like how alcohol
works. Some villages are damp and people can possess
alcohol, but alcohol cannot be bought or sold in the
village. If the marijuana law is similar to the alcohol
importation law, then, yes, his understanding is that a law
enforcement officer would not seize an ounce or less if
someone in a village was caught with it.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said that is how he reads it as well,
that possession would still be allowed in some villages.
10:58:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER related that according to information
[in the committee packet], the total cost range for all of
the different agencies, which includes DOR, DCCED, DHSS,
DPS, DEC, the University of Alaska, the Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, and the Division of Elections, would
add up to between $3.7 million and $7 million.
CHAIR COGHILL concurred that is the dollar amount and added
that there are huge indeterminate questions yet.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said his understanding from reading
about Colorado and other states is that because of sales
becoming legal, there are now individuals whose illegal
participation has decreased so they are not making as much
money. According to a DEA agent in Colorado, there has
been an increase in cartels moving in, such as through
straw owners of some of the facilities. He asked whether
DPS perceives that something similar will happen in Alaska.
SERGEANT RUSSELL answered there is a lot of money to be
made in the sale of illegal and legal marijuana and he
thinks people will do what is in their best interest and
will try to continue to sell marijuana, whether or not they
have a license to do so.
11:01:32 AM
TIM HINTERBERGER, PhD, Chair, Campaign to Regulate
Marijuana Like Alcohol, offered the following testimony:
My name is Tim Hinterberger, I've been an Alaskan
resident for over 20 years. I am a professor in
the medical school at the University of Alaska,
Anchorage. I am here to talk today about the
public policy reform grounded in a concern for
public health and wiser public policy. On August
19, 2014, Alaskans will have the chance to vote on
a ballot initiative that will end the harmful and
ineffective policy of marijuana prohibition and
replace it with a system in which marijuana is
taxed and regulated like alcohol. It will
restrict legal use to adults, 21 years of age or
older, and allow limited sale of the substance to
licensed tax-paying businesses that test their
products and require proof of age. This all makes
good sense to those of us who recognize that
marijuana prohibition has been just as
ineffective, inefficient, and problematic as
alcohol prohibition was. Polls show that a
majority of Americans and Alaskans agree it is
time to end marijuana prohibition and make
marijuana legal. The dramatic increase in public
support for marijuana legalization over the last
decade is based largely on the recognition that
marijuana is objectively safer than alcohol.
Gallop released a poll in October 2013 showing
that a majority of Americans agree it is time to
replace the failed policy of prohibition with a
more sensible approach. Another major poll
released in Alaska last month showed that 55
percent of Alaska voters are in favor of
regulating marijuana like alcohol with just 39
percent opposing. And, the yearly poll
commissioned by the Republican House Majority
reaffirmed what we already knew, the majority of
Alaskans believe that marijuana should be made
legal for use by adults in this state. In the
1980s and 1990s era of the War on Drugs, the
public was inundated with the inaccurate and
dangerous message that marijuana is more harmful
than it actually is. Our laws should reflect the
scientific fact, and it is a fact that marijuana
is vastly less toxic, less addictive, and less
harmful to the body than is alcohol. Nor does it
significantly contribute to violent and reckless
behavior. It is also a substance that offers
benefit to people suffering from chronic pain and
other serious medical conditions. As policy
makers, you understand that there is one commonly
used drug associated with the wide variety of
health problems, both chronic and acute: alcohol.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
report released in 2013, shows that the cost of
binge drinking is higher in alcohol than in any
other state. According to this report, the cost
of health care bills, lost days at work, car
crashes, other alcohol related problems came to
over $1,096 per Alaskan. Marijuana, on the other
hand, does not cause overdose deaths and comes
with far fewer long-term health consequences. A
Rand Corporation study of California patients,
released in 2010, found that fewer than 200 total
patients were admitted to California hospitals in
2008 for marijuana abuse or dependence. In
contrast, a Rand report is that in 2006 there were
34,000 ... over 34,000 hospitalizations due to
illness or chronic conditions caused by alcohol
consumption. By allowing alcohol ... I'm sorry
... by allowing adults to use alcohol, but making
it a crime for them to use a safer substance,
marijuana, our laws are steering people in the
wrong direction. Such absurd policies foster
disrespect for the law and law enforcement
officials whose time and resources would be better
spent addressing serious crimes instead of
arresting and prosecuting adults for using
marijuana. In 2010, over 2,000 Alaskans were
arrested for marijuana possession according to a
2013 ACLU report. Those 2,028 arrests made up 81
percent of all drug arrests in this state which
represents the highest rate in the country. That
same report compiled publically available FBI data
and found that the state spent nearly $9 million
enforcing marijuana possession statutes. That is
$2 million a year more than it will cost to
implement the regulatory system that this
initiative proposes even at the very highest
levels being projected by the state. Any talk of
the so-called cost of passing this initiative
should be framed as savings because, we know,
without question that the government program we've
come to know as prohibition is significantly more
expensive.
11:06:38 AM
[DR. HINTERBERGER continued] Meanwhile, clearance
rates for many serious crimes are exceptionally
low in Alaska and many never result in arrest.
Anyone who tells you that marijuana is basically
legal in this state and that people aren't being
arrested simply doesn't know the facts. It's a
problem and will continue to be until prohibition
is ended in this state. Under our initiative,
authorities will actually know who is selling
marijuana, where it is being sold, when and to
whom. Sellers will be legitimate tax-paying
business instead of criminal enterprises in the
underground market. Regulating marijuana will
create new jobs and generated much needed tax
revenue for Alaska. That money is currently going
to criminal enterprises which should be going
toward building schools, improving Alaska's
infrastructure, and to educating Alaskans about
the risks associated with the abuse of any
substance. This is an important point and is one
that you will be hearing Mr. Jessee and Mr. Cort
focus their testimony on, we believe. We are in
the position of having to testify first so I will
try and address their arguments proactively in the
short amount of time we have. They are going to
tell you that responsible Alaskans should be
allowed to use marijuana without fear of arrest.
They will agree with us that marijuana is far
safer than alcohol. They will tell you that
basically ... that they basically agree with the
concept of legalization, but that this initiative
goes too far because it allows for the
establishment of a commercial industry. This is a
ridiculous argument that ignores both practical
reality and the language of the initiative. You
simply cannot legalize consumption of any product,
food, beverage, marijuana, if it is illegal to
sell or buy the product commercially. You end up
with what we have now, quasi-legal consumption and
an unregulated black market. Alaskans will
continue to be arrested for choosing to use a
substance that is safer than alcohol and
underground criminal enterprises will continue to
exercise monopoly control over the market and reap
all the profits. Everyone agrees that marijuana
is not going to go away so you have to ask
yourself a fundamental question, why would we want
marijuana to be sold by criminals instead of
licensed businesses. Again, we are talking about
a substance that is already widely available,
widely used, and we agree is objectively less
harmful than alcohol. There is no reason why we
should leave it in the underground market where
its cultivation and sale are entirely
uncontrolled. Mr. Guaneli will likely tell you
that passing this initiative will lead to
significant increase in use amongst teens. A
majority of Alaskans support making marijuana
legal for adults and we all care just as much
about protecting young people as those who wish to
keep marijuana illegal. We simply know that
regulation will be a more effective way of
restricting access to teens. Marijuana
prohibition has failed miserably at keep marijuana
out of the hands of teens. For decades, more than
80 percent of high school seniors have reported
that marijuana is very easy or fairly easy to
obtain in a ... a national survey. If the goal of
our current prohibition policy is to keep
marijuana out of the hands of young people and yet
more than 80 percent can a ... get it easily, that
is a sign that the policy has failed and it is
time for a new approach. By forcing marijuana
into an underground market we are guaranteeing
that sales will be entirely uncontrolled. Illegal
marijuana dealers do not ask for ID, they sell a
product that is unregulated, and possibly impure,
and they might expose consumers to other more
harmful drugs. In a regulated market businesses
would be required to ask customers their proof of
age, and they would face penalties for selling
marijuana to minors. Under the language of the
initiative, the state and local governments have
broad powers to create rules regarding
advertising, labeling, testing, serving sizes,
additives, permissible financial interests,
production caps, licensing classes and so on.
Local governments can even go so far as to ban
retail stores all together within their
jurisdiction. If the Northwest Arctic Borough, or
Municipality of Anchorage, or the City and Borough
of Juneau determine that they do not want a
commercial industry of marijuana in their
community then they are perfectly free to make
that decision. In theory, every governmental
entity in the state could come to that same
conclusion. You are likely going to hear Mr.
Jessee still try and tell you that marijuana
legalization can work without setting up a
commercial industry. His solution, he is going to
argue that the initiative could and ... could have
and should have been written to give the State of
Alaska monopoly control over the industry. Does
anyone in this room believe that alcohol sales
should be taken out of the private sector all
together and handed over to the state? If not,
then why would we take this approach with a
substance such as marijuana which is objectively
safer? It makes absolutely no sense and violates
the principles which unite us as Alaskans. We
live in a free society and as Alaskans we really
value and cherish that freedom. Part of living in
a free society is recognizing that responsible
adults should be left to make reasonable decisions
about how to live their lives. We draw the line
with truly dangerous substances and with
activities that harm others. But, nobody actually
believes that marijuana belongs in that category.
So we have the opportunity to do this right with
marijuana and it will ultimately be your job as
policymakers to determine the best way to go about
setting up this industry. This is what the people
elected you to do. They want to end the failed
policies of prohibition and after they vote to
pass Ballot Measure 2 this fall the reins will
handed over to you and other state officials to
guide the process forward in a reasonable and
responsible manner. I would encourage you all to
focus your attention on how to work within the
parameters of the initiative to implement this
commonsense policy. I encourage you to start
thinking about ways to potentially improve upon
the law as it is currently written rather than
listening to scare tactics and misinformation that
failed in Colorado, failed in Washington, and will
ultimately fail in Alaska. Thank you.
11:13:11 AM
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that the committees are trying to
figure out what the initiative says.
11:13:36 AM
KELLY DREW, MD, said she "seconds" Dr. Hinterberger's
testimony. She informed the committees that she has been a
resident of Alaska for four years, with specific expertise
in the neuropharmacology of marijuana, and is not an expert
on the specific provisions of the initiative. Dr. Drew
reiterated that she is trained in neuropharmacology, which
is the study of the effects of drugs on behavior and the
brain. She related that as a scientist she has studied
this subject and has made significant contributions in
understanding addiction, plus she teaches a course at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks in how drugs affect the
brain and behavior. The course includes information on the
pharmacology behavioral effects, the cellular and molecular
effects, and addictive properties of the cannabinoids,
which are a class of drugs defined by marijuana. On
occasion she has served as an expert witness for legal
proceedings that contain effects and ("indisc.") behavior,
including the effects of marijuana. She stated she is
available to provide expertise, and is a citizen supporting
the initiative.
DR. DREW, in response to Chair Coghill, said that she is
not an original sponsor of the initiative, but
participates. Dr. Drew further responded that she would be
very interested in joining the discussion when health and
safety standards are considered, especially with field
sobriety and other aspects of the pharmacology of the drug.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if she disagreed that marijuana
use will increase if the initiative is passed.
DR. DREW offered that it is a debatable and difficult
question in that there is evidence in the literature to
suggest that it might, and evidence it will not.
CHAIR COGHILL asked about the significant health
differences between smoking marijuana and smoking tobacco.
DR. DREW related that primarily it is the magnitude of the
amount of smoke consumed. Marijuana is smoked
significantly less frequently than someone who smokes
tobacco, she opined. There is also some evidence that the
secondary products in marijuana are not as harmful as
tobacco, but it is a very small population of individuals
who are only marijuana smokers and do not consume tobacco.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the carcinogenic question and the
second-hand smoke questions are issues people will be alert
to because cigarette smoking is something that has been
paid close attention to.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if Dr. Drew has information as to
what percentage of marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes.
DR. DREW advised that she does not have exact numbers but
in the studies that try to "tease out" the health
consequences of smoking marijuana it is often confounded by
tobacco use. It is a small percentage of individuals
studied who smoke only marijuana, she opined.
11:19:42 AM
ROBERT CAPECCHI, Deputy Director, State Policies, Marijuana
Policy Project, stated the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)
is a national 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) based in D.C., and
is privately funded by individuals. He noted that MPP has
worked in Alaska for policy reforms for the past 10 years,
and also works with legislatures across the country and on
a federal level. The largest study to separate out
marijuana-only smokers was conducted by Donald P. Tashkin,
MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
Dr. Tashkin and his team studied only marijuana smokers,
marijuana/tobacco smokers, and non-smokers, assuming they
would find a correlation between cancers of the mouth,
throat and lungs. The highest rate of cancers in the
mouth, throat, and lungs was predictably from the group of
individuals who smoked both marijuana and tobacco.
However, he opined, the lowest rate of cancers of the
mouth, throat and lungs were from only marijuana smokers
and were even lower than non-smokers in general. He
highlighted that it is not to suggest that marijuana use
prevents cancers, but he found it interesting to consider
since marijuana use was parsed out from marijuana/tobacco
use and felt it should be given weight. The idea of a
state monopoly tramples on the idea of entrepreneurship and
even though it would exact control on the market, it would
be federally illegal. An assistant attorney general
previously discussed preemption which is a difficult
question, except in situations when direct preemption
arises. He described a scenario of the state instructing
state employees of state marijuana stores, to violate
federal law. He opined that it is clearly a federal
preemption issue and not an option. He suggested that
those who wish to have a state monopoly lobby the federal
government and that could be accomplished "quite easily."
He pointed out that Diane Casto had discussed the
downstream consequences of passage of this initiative and
how the fiscal impact is necessarily tied to new users. He
argued that fiscal impact will be affected by some new
users but more so by current users who are purchasing
marijuana illicitly. The assumption that the fiscal impact
is driven entirely by new users is inaccurate, he opined.
After the first month of legal sales in Colorado, a poll
was conducted that revealed that while 51 percent of those
polled said they had tried marijuana in their lifetime,
only 10 percent said they used marijuana when sales began
on January 1, [2014]. He related that the 10 percent
figure is in line with survey results that show what use
rates are in Colorado. There was nothing to suggest that
the beginning of regulated sales all of a sudden led to a
huge new demand. He surmised it would be expected at the
front end of the sale because the excitement would be
there. He referred to a prior discussion that the criminal
market was not being eradicated by voting-in this
initiative, and the fact they would still be involved in
marijuana sales. He said he is not aware of business
licenses being issued to the cartel in the State of
Colorado, as the state has a vigorous marijuana enforcement
division and frequently brings cases against marijuana
dispensaries that violate state law. It was suggested
there could be diversion from Alaska out-of-state, and he
referred to previous testimony regarding the geographic
difficulty of doing this from Alaska versus from Colorado
where an individual can drive across state lines. On March
15, 2014, The Coloradoan published an article stating that
Colorado's border states have had little change since
marijuana was legalized. He remarked that it quoted
extensively from law enforcement officials with neighboring
states who all agreed they had seen no increase of
marijuana coming across their borders and nothing to
suggest there is massive diversion taking place by the new
law. He said he could understand concerns that passing the
initiative would be adding another vice to the market for
adults to use. However, he related there is no reason to
believe that allowing adults to use marijuana will result
in significant societal problems. Health care costs
associated with alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana were
studied in 2009, and the British Columbia Mental Health and
Addictions Journal found that the annual health care costs of
alcohol consumption per user are $165, tobacco user $800,
marijuana user $20. The effects of marijuana use to society
pales in comparison, and marijuana tax revenue would offset that
amount, he opined. With regard to tax revenue, he said it is
difficult to tag a specific number, however, the first month's
sales in Colorado brought in $2 million to the state in taxes
which, he noted, is lower than people expected. He related that
it could be seen as a good thing as not as many people were
purchasing marijuana as may have been feared. In addition to
sales tax and excise taxes in Colorado, jobs are created. He
said it is difficult to put a number on the amount of jobs in
Alaska, but the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division has
issued 5,728 employee badges. He advised that currently there
is a big marijuana industry - the Zetas, Sinaloa, and Gulf
Cartels - which operate in high schools across the country.
This initiative removes marijuana from that industry's structure
and places it in regulated businesses that the state oversees.
Advertising restrictions are not set in the initiative as that
would be performed in the regulatory process. In Colorado,
marijuana retailers may not engage in advertising via
unsolicited pop-up ads on the Internet, are prohibited from
using advertising visible from any public place, and may not use
cartoon characters, images, or content appealing to individuals
under 21. The State of Rhode Island envisions advertising
restrictions at least as restrictive as tobacco. The State of
Alaska has the opportunity to enact responsible and thorough
regulations on an emerging industry. He opined that tobacco and
alcohol were not regulated from the front end, but rather the
tail end.
11:30:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted that Alaskans are very
sensitive about outside influence. He read a statement by
the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians that includes
the Village of Kasaan, Central Council of Tlingit-Haida
Indians, and the Community of Metlakatla as follows:
Their member tribes strive for drug free
communities in order to provide safe and healthy
environments for their tribal members, including
the most vulnerable, the children.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked how he would respond to someone
outside coming in and having an influence and potentially
pushing something on a group of people of Alaska who have
indicated that they would prefer this not be allowed in
Alaska.
MR. CAPECCHI related that the ballot initiative being
debated would allow localities to determine whether they
wanted regulated sales on their territory. He acknowledged
that MPP's base is Washington, D.C., it has given money to
the campaign [in support of the initiative], and Alaskans
have donated to the campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that a sponsor of the
campaign said the message would be getting out to Alaskans
in a number of ways. He asked the scope of the campaign.
MR. CAPECCHI answered that he cannot explain the scope as
he does not work in the communications department; he is
the deputy director of state policies. Within the Colorado
Amendment 64 campaign, of which MPP was the primary
financial backer, MPP produced television commercials,
radio ads, flyers, handouts, yard signs, and typical
campaign advocacy materials.
11:34:16 AM
BEN CORT, Business Manager, Center for Dependency,
Addiction and Rehabilitation (CeDAR), University of
Colorado Health System, stated he works for the University
of Colorado Health System in their inpatient drug treatment
program, CeDAR, and is the father of three. He said
Colorado clearly is at the forefront of this "experiment"
and asked that everyone remember the old adage, "A smart
man learns from his mistakes and a wise man from the
mistakes of others." There is clear national attention
from the marijuana lobby on Alaska because they are trying
to [pass the initiative] quickly. He suggested everyone
wait for the data from Colorado to "play out." A National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) report is due at the end of
the summer, and he had the opportunity to preview some of
the disturbing numbers. The race to legalize marijuana is
driven by a well-coordinated industry with approximately
$100 million in its war chest, which includes the Marijuana
Policy Project (MPP), the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and
the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
(NORML). It is a clear national agenda and Alaska fits
very well into that as Alaska is starting to see the
beginning of exactly what was seen in Colorado, which was a
massive influx of external money to influence voters. The
"NO" campaign was outspent by about 12 to 1 with all of its
money coming from within Colorado, with little exception.
He opined that almost all of the money on the other side
came from California and Washington D.C. He related that
Colorado was caught up in more of a national agenda than a
Colorado agenda. The commercialization of marijuana caught
people off guard and it is very important to remember that
the way Alaska's proposed legislation is written, it
specifically protects provisions that were allowed under
Colorado law by omission. The notion that aggressive
marketing will be held back in any manner is wrong as there
would be First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution issues.
He offered to forward examples of cartoons being used to
sell marijuana, and noted that marketing is aggressively
publicized in public places such as billboards, taxi sides,
advertisements, and folks with flip signs, and it all has
an appeal to young people. He related that many of the
business owners have public relations backgrounds and who
were not involved in the marijuana industry until there was
money to be made. There are First Amendment issues anytime
attempts are made to curtail advertising. Due to the large
amounts of money to be made, many of these folks have said
they are interested in becoming "big marijuana," and not
"small mom and pop stuff." In Colorado there are two
companies: Dixie Elixirs basically sells fruit flavored
sodas with high doses of THC in them and Open Vape sells a
product they blatantly advertise is for the consumption of
marijuana discreetly and the tag line is "so you can smoke
the good stuff anywhere you want." These companies are
saying they are going to do $1 billion in commerce just in
Colorado this year. He described the foregoing as big
marijuana. During a job fair, sponsored by Open Vape, he
noted that the advertised jobs were for marketing and sales
and not running a counter. He related that another concern
is of sub-industries that have sprung up such as the
marijuana vaporizing industry. This allows the user to
consume THC anywhere they want to with no smell and in a
manner manifested in Colorado by young people in high
schools. This has high school principals, guidance
counselors, school resource officers, and everyone up in
arms because the kids don't even have to cut class to get
high. From an industrialization standpoint, there is no
arguing that Colorado has the best marijuana on earth:
smoked marijuana is 20-30 percent THC content and the
concentrates are 80-90 percent THC content. The butane
extracted hash that has the 80-90 percent THC content very
notably is consumed on a super-heated needle by hot knifing
the exact way that is typical of crack cocaine. He opined
that anytime industry is invited in, there will be a race
for the potency to increase because the shops are all
basically selling the same product, and the guy who can
sell the most THC for the least amount of money is going to
get the business. He asked that the committee take a hard
look at the concentrates and carefully consider that
proposed AS 17.38.900(6) speaks very clearly to what
marijuana is: resin extracted from the plant, oils, and
every compound. This is Alaska's legislation saying that
this is always going to be considered marijuana, these
highly industrialized products and super-potent things that
from an addiction standpoint, and mental health standpoint,
Colorado has never seen before. There have been four
years' worth of experience with marijuana this potent in
the world and the idea it is the same hemp George
Washington probably smoked on his front porch, which was
0.2 percent THC, and this is 80-90 percent THC, is
unfounded. He asked that the committees further consider
that Colorado's marijuana edibles in many cases are so
potent that they require they be cut into fourths before
consuming. Colorado has had several deaths of animals that
have eaten entire edibles. There are multiple examples at
the Children's Hospital emergency room at the University of
Colorado campus of young people coming in with accidental
ingestion issues. He described the edibles as not just pot
brownies, because there are gums, suckers, hard candies,
gummy worms, and gummy bears, which are not being marketed
for the 40-year-old who wants to get high in his basement
on a Friday night. These are sweet treats and the appeal
is for children.
11:44:20 AM
CHAIR COGHILL asked for the definition of a tincture under
proposed AS 17.38.900(11).
11:44:32 AM
MR. CORT responded that he did not know if Colorado
specifically called out tinctures. His thought is a
tincture may be cannabidiol (CBD) enhanced medicinal
products that are taken orally by young people.
Cannabidiol has almost no psychoactive compound and the CBD
will not get someone high.
MR. CORT requested that the committee give legalizing
marijuana some time to play out in Colorado. He used the
analogy that if Colorado is the canary in the coal mine,
Alaska revisit the issue in two years to determine if
Colorado is singing or is dead. He reiterated that the
industry is coming from a national lobby with a national
agenda that is much more concerned with its agenda than
with Alaskans. Colorado fell victim and it is his hope
that Alaska does not.
11:46:02 AM
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA), Department of Revenue (DOR), said
this initiative is nothing less than a Trojan Horse as it
seeks to cloak the real purpose of the initiative with a
veil of evolving public opinion and Alaska's attitude that
individuals should be free to engage in personal conduct,
including the consumption of marijuana, without fearing a
wrath of citations by the government. Alaska has already
moved quite a distance compared to most other states in
this regard as under Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska
1975), personal use in the privacy of an individual's own
home is legal. In addition, there are medical marijuana
provisions allowing for the legitimate medicinal properties
of marijuana to be made available to the public under a
controlled situation. Proponents of the initiative
consistently talk about the illegality of the use of this
product and the threat of arrest that faces people as the
linchpin for Alaskans to vote for this initiative, he
opined. He related that the vast majority of those types
of arrests would be covered by two proposed sections: AS
17.38.020 regarding personal use, and AS 17.38.030
regarding cultivation. These two provisions constitute
less than one page of the eight page initiative so the real
purpose of the initiative is to legalize the
commercialization and industrialization of marijuana, he
opined. He said the initiative would allow very little
ability to limit the advertising and promotion of this
drug, and the presence of multiple commercial outlets would
further contribute to promotion of this product. The
proponents make an argument that because marijuana is less
harmful than alcohol, it should be okay for people to
consume, and when it is okay for people to consume it, it
should be okay to create an industry willing to spend huge
sums of money to promote the increased use of marijuana.
He reiterated that the two purposes behind this are the
promotion and advertising of marijuana, and expressed his
hope that few people have bought the argument that
advertising and promoting these products isn't about
increasing consumption, it is just about the different
companies fighting for market share. In the alcohol
industry, the huge amounts of money that go into
advertising are clearly designed to maximize the
consumption of the product and therefore maximize the
profits of the companies that are engaged in this activity.
He related that huge amounts of money are being poured into
the legalization efforts to see that these are not folks
worried about someone getting a ticket, or even a
misdemeanor charge for consuming marijuana, this isn't led
by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), but by people
who want to increase consumption of this product and allow
themselves to make further profit at the expense of the
community.
11:51:45 AM
MR. JESSEE, in response to Chair Coghill, said that his
last reference is to edibles and foodstuff which are
totally different from alcohol. Edibles allow THC to be
placed in a huge range of products as prior testimony
showed, and many of those products will be very attractive
to underage consumers as they will consume these products
once they are out of the package, in front of teachers and
parents, and there is no way in the field to determine
whether in fact these products are laced with THC or not.
He reiterated that the initiative is a Trojan Horse
designed not just to address the issue of criminalization
but to create a commercial enterprise that will be
dedicated to increasing the consumption of marijuana among
all age groups of Alaskans.
11:53:13 AM
DEAN GUANELI, Attorney at Law, stated he worked for the
Alaska Department of Law for 30 years. One of his major
projects toward the end of his career was testifying before
the legislature in favor of the re-criminalization of
marijuana. In 2006, the legislature held extensive
hearings on marijuana and many of the same things the
legislature heard at that time, are being heard now. In
2004, there was a defeated ballot initiative to legalize
marijuana and, four years before that, another defeated
ballot initiative. He questioned what had changed between
then and now. He determined that the primary changes are
that Washington and Colorado made the mistake of legalizing
marijuana and creating retail industries. In addition,
Diane Casto's testimony of a new study showing a decrease
in IQ for young people using marijuana is another change.
There is no question that use of marijuana among adults and
children is going to increase, as it has happened in other
places where marijuana has been legalized. In Europe, and
in many countries where marijuana has not been legalized
and there is no retail marketing, but possession is not a
crime, yet it's still illegal to grow or sell, use has
increased greatly. National experts have referred to the
"Portugal Model," under which growing and selling is
illegal, but allows an individual to possess marijuana,
marijuana use has increased 50 percent, heroin use has
increased more than 50 percent, Ecstasy use has almost
doubled, and cocaine use has doubled. Those kinds of
figures have applied across Europe where many countries
have made it legal to possess drugs or have tolerated it.
Before Colorado and Washington, the biggest experience
America had with legalized marijuana was medical marijuana.
States with medical marijuana have seen use increase and
particularly among children. In the states that have
"medical marijuana dispensaries" where retailed medical
marijuana can be sold, use among teenagers is at 50 percent
higher than other states. A survey took place in Denver,
Colorado, of teenagers and juveniles and three-fourths of
those who smoked marijuana said they have been able to get
marijuana from medical marijuana users. He opined that as
a society, the use of any psychoactive drug should not be
condoned, certainly for adults driving with it, working
with it, or caring for children. Professor Hinterberger's
testimony outlined that there would be savings in criminal
justice costs, and money to be made in doing this. Earlier
this month he said he participated in a University of
Alaska panel discussion regarding marijuana legalization,
and one of the first things he did was review cases
involving misdemeanor marijuana possession that had gone
through the courts. As Nancy Meade testified from the
Alaska Court System, most are done by citation and are
quickly resolved with a suspended sentence and maybe a
small fine. Every once in a while jail time was imposed as
the person was indicted for felony distribution of
marijuana to children and assault on a police officer with
a long criminal history, yet after plea bargaining it
looked like a misdemeanor sentence. The vast majority of
cases the Alaska Court System sees are public possession of
marijuana currently done by citation, he reiterated. He
related that under this initiative, those will still be
citable offenses and still go through the court system, so
will not save any money. On the question of whether it
would make money there was testimony that in Colorado
during the first month marijuana was legalized it made $2
million in taxes, but Colorado has seven times the
population of Alaska and also a population base in
surrounding states. He suggested dividing $2 million by
one-seventh to determine what Alaska could expect.
Assuming Alaska makes enough money to counteract the costs
projected in the current fiscal notes, there would be costs
for health and social services and for marijuana
dependence, which is comparable to addiction. He referred
to a proponent of marijuana legalization, a medical expert
from Harvard who testified in front of the legislature in
2006, who basically defined dependence as an unhealthy and
unwanted preoccupation with a drug to the exclusion of most
other things. Mr. Guaneli offered that the Harvard medical
expert said an individual is constantly thinking about it,
and using it to recover from its effects; it is a habit
that impairs physical health, work, family life and
relationships and noted people often repeatedly try to quit
and they can't. He said this is the medical definition of
dependence. He opined that scientists know that 9-10
percent of regular adult users become dependent to this
extent on marijuana. At some point in their lives, whether
by judicial action, employer action, or when their family
forces them into treatment, they are going to need
treatment, he submitted. In the event more individuals
need treatment, "Who's going to pay for that?" he asked.
In 2006, a witness experienced in alcohol treatment from
the Department of Health and Social Services testified that
marijuana treatment makes alcohol treatment much more
difficult. In Alaska, a large percentage of people in
treatment for alcohol addiction also have a secondary
dependence on marijuana, which makes it more difficult to
treat those people, he reiterated. As the individuals are
recovering from alcoholism they think marijuana is a safe
high and it brings them back down the spiral into
alcoholism. He queried why allow a drug which brings so
much havoc in Alaska. In 2006, the legislature heard from
experts of the proponents to legalize marijuana that
marijuana affects people prone to mental illness as it
makes psychotic breaks come on more rapidly and more
seriously. In fact, Senator Olson marked at the time that
he knew a number of people whose mental illnesses were made
worse by the use of marijuana, he offered. Mr. Guaneli
said the Department of Health & Social Services fiscal note
is probably too conservative with adults. He referred to
Diane Casto's testimony in that there are prenatal effects
of women using marijuana, and noted that Alaska surveys
show that a fairly good percentage of pregnant women use in
Alaska. Proponents' experts, in 2006, testified that the
adolescent brain is going through development in the late
teenage years and into the early 20s. The experts further
testified that a portion of the higher brain functions,
such as judgment and reasoning, are developed in late
teenage years, and marijuana is dangerous during that
critical period of development, he opined. The mechanism
was unknown as to how it affected the brain development,
they just knew it did. Currently, he proffered that one of
the proponents' 2006 experts currently commented that "...
what we now know is that ... it affects the ratio of brain
cells." The expert further commented there are white brain
cells and grey brain cells that have to be of a certain
ratio and stated that those brain cells get "out of whack."
He said that Diane Casto earlier mentioned a recent study
that has now quantified and measured at least part of that
affect and that is a study that showed up to an eight point
decrease in IQ.
12:06:03 PM
MR. GUANELI offered a scenario regarding the eight point
drop in IQ, wherein if an individual's IQ is 100, which is
the 50th percentile, an eight point drop puts an individual
at well below average. Our public education system has
enough problems without juveniles having lowered IQ because
of a drug, he opined. There is a reason the Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians voted that marijuana should not
be legal, as surveys have shown that among Alaska Native
youth, marijuana use is significantly higher and in many
cases double the rate of use by non-Native youth, he
stated. The tribes themselves have recognized that there
is a real problem as should the rest of society, he opined.
There are a number of issues in this initiative that are
not well understood, some of which have been addressed
today, but the legislature will have to clarify and offer
guidance as to how legalizing marijuana would work. For
example, the initiative seems to say an individual can
possess under one ounce, plus an individual can possess any
amount of marijuana an individual has grown on their own.
Essentially, there is no limit to the amount of marijuana
that can be possessed under the initiative, he submitted.
12:08:04 PM
CHAIR COGHILL noted that enforcement issues will be tough.
MR. GUANELI agreed and said that he was not sure the
legislature necessarily has the ability to correct that
issue. He reiterated Mr. Cort's testimony that Alaska has
an opportunity to learn from Washington and Colorado simply
by waiting, as we do not want to experiment with Alaska,
our youth, and the health of the state.
12:08:35 PM
ADAM BERKEY stated he is a 5th grade teacher and has worked
with Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) over the
years. He stated he is a medicinal marijuana consumer due
to epilepsy as it works well for grand mal seizures. In
that marijuana is illegal, people believe those who use
marijuana are morally corrupt and are not trusted as
individuals. He asked the committees to consider him a
human being as anyone else: He is 36 years old, volunteers
for his community, teaches children, works hard, is a good
husband, and a good son, but at the end of the day he does
not "dare" adopt children with the current laws as he is
concerned his adopted child will tell schoolmates about his
medicinal marijuana license. He related that there is a
human side to marijuana and it is not the ACLU, or MPP
coming into Alaska but people in Alaska, known to members
of the committees, who are adults in the "marijuana closet"
for fear of getting into trouble.
12:11:19 PM
ROSEANNE MANCUSO stated she is Gwich'in Athabascan and said
that to offset the suicide rate is to legalize cannabis in
the State of Alaska to help people's depression due to the
long cold winters, or cabin fever. The pro-marijuana
groups claim that hemp is such a versatile raw material
that its products not only compete with petroleum, but with
coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, and pharmaceutical,
tender, and textile companies. She related that it is
estimated that methane and methanol production alone from
cannabis grown as biomass could replace 90 percent of the
world's energy needs. The difference is that the cannabis
source is renewable, cheap, and clean and the petroleum and
coal sources are limited, expensive, and dirty. By volume,
30 percent of the cannabis seed contains oil suitable for
high-grade diesel fuel as well as aircraft engine and
precision machine oil. She offered that a long time ago,
William Randolph Hurst began referring to hemp in his
newspapers by its Spanish name - marijuana. She related
that this did two things: it associated the plant with
Mexicans and played on racist fears, and misled the public
into thinking that marijuana and hemp were a different
plant. In 1938, Popular Mechanics ran an article about
cannabis called the New Billion Dollar Crop, and it was the
first time the words "billion dollars" were used to
describe a U.S. agricultural product.
12:14:02 PM
JIM NELSON stated there has been legal possession of
cannabis by adults in Alaska for almost 40 years which
generated almost no data on any affects or consequences on
society. He noted that Alaska could have been a testing
ground for the rest of the country, but there are no
studies because [adult marijuana consumption] hadn't risen
to the level of conducting studies. Alaskans could have
studied rates of suicide, car accidents, general rates of
crime, emergency room visits, rates of alcoholism, spousal
and child abuse and use of other substances, he opined. He
pointed out that a study at a ".gov" website concluded
there are substances in cannabis among the most powerful
neurological anti-toxins known, and offered that there have
been incredible results with children and seizure control.
It is a very complicated subject, but not to worry about it
from the point of view of addiction; personally, his
strongest addiction is coffee. In terms of creating
policy, he suggested maximizing employability among people
finding it hard to find employment.
12:17:17 PM
DEBORAH WILLIAMS stated she will address five issues raised
by committee members. It is clear that Representative
Foster and others are concerned about [marijuana] having an
adverse impact on local control, and she said it does. In
particular, she noted that Alaskans living in villages and
smaller communities should read proposed AS 17.38.020(a),
because villages will not be able to restrict the
transportation or use of marijuana in their community under
this [initiative]. She opined there will be no such thing
as villages being able to be "dry" on marijuana. It is
essential that the definition of marijuana is clear as the
resin extracted from any part of the plant and every
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or
preparation of a plant, its seeds or its resin including
marijuana concentrate. She urged every Alaskan to Google
shatter, crumble, butane hash oil (BHO), and wax to review
that this [initiative] specifically requires and authorizes
Alaska to legalize, commercialize, and industrialize 80-90
percent THC. Alaskans have no idea of the serious impacts
from the industrialized product the initiative specifically
authorizes, she opined. She noted the importance of the
testimony of the Department of Corrections in that there
are no savings, which means there is not a problem with
people in jail now on marijuana possession. Therefore,
this [initiative] does not present any savings because
Alaska does not have that problem now. She related concern
that the [initiative] is filled with "shall, shall not, and
notwithstanding any other provision of law," and urged the
Department of Law to review each of those instances
regarding profound implications. The legislature has
appropriately focused on the cost to state government which
is over $7 million, but those are not costs to Alaskans.
There are costs to society when youth lose eight to ten
points of IQ, or an individual is injured because someone
is driving under the influence. The DUI rates for
marijuana are skyrocketing in Colorado and Washington, and
costs to productivity when people are injured on the job
from others consuming marijuana, she opined. She remarked
that the legislature should try to come up with the total
costs to state government [and society], as it is known
from tobacco and alcohol for every $1 raised in revenue
there are $10 of costs to society. She opined this is a
flawed, costly [initiative] that would legalize the
industrialization and commercialization in Alaska.
12:21:55 PM
ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Executive Director, Mat-Su Health
Foundation, Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, stated that the
Mat-Su Health Foundation Board of Directors is concerned
about the potential health effects of the initiative as
articulated by Diane Casto and Jeff Jessee. She noted that
Mat-Su youth marijuana use increased by 14 percent from
2005-2011, and during that timeframe the perception of harm
of the drug decreased due to changing social norms. As
Jeff Jessee indicated, the initiative will create a rapid
acceleration in the shifting social norms, she opined. The
initiative sets an age limit of 21 years, but sends a clear
message to Alaskan youth that getting high is okay through
the use of this drug. She related that the proliferation
of stories, advertising, and communications will reinforce
the message all over Alaska and through the media. She
related that the local substance abuse coalition has worked
hard through a variety of environmental strategies to
reduce alcohol consumption among youth. Binge drinking
rates in Mat-Su have decreased 41.5 percent from 2005-2011
as it was clearly communicated that binge drinking is not a
healthy norm, but the initiative will do the opposite and
normalize marijuana socially, she opined. She noted that
the Mat-Su Community Health Needs Assessment was completed
in 2013, and in 24 community forums, Alaska residents
outlined the top health goals for the state's fastest
growing population. She advised that the number one goal
is that children are safe and well cared for and it is in
the interest of this goal that the Mat-Su Health Foundation
expresses concern about the initiative.
12:24:07 PM
JAMES SCHENK stated that lives are needlessly destroyed by
marijuana prohibition laws. He remarked that the
government arrests over 700,000 Americans, which are more
than the population of Wyoming, for marijuana possession
every year. He opined that these new convicts are driven
from their jobs and families and pushed into a prison
system that turns first-time offenders into hardened
criminals. He noted the hypocrisy in that the U.S.
government previously was awarded a patent number 6,630,507
on cannabinoids and neuro-protectants which is useful in
the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases
including stroke, trauma, autoimmune disorder, human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), dementia, Parkinson's, and
Alzheimer's. He related that laws are in conflict with the
states and federal government due to this patent for the
federal government. He opined that there is no medical
evidence that shows a high potency in marijuana is more
harmful than a low potency in marijuana as marijuana is
literally one of the least toxic substances known. He
submitted that high-potency marijuana is actually
preferable because less of it is consumed to obtain the
desired effect and thereby reducing the amount of smoke
entering the lungs, and lowering the risk of respiratory
health hazards. He related that claiming high-potency
marijuana is more harmful than low-potency marijuana is
like claiming wine is more harmful than beer. He admitted
there is a chance of contracting cancer from smoking
marijuana, but it is miniscule as tobacco smokers typically
smoke 20 plus cigarettes every day for decades. He further
submitted that virtually no one smokes marijuana in the
quantity and frequency required to cause cancer. The U.S.
government's statistics show that over 75 percent of all
Americans who use marijuana never use harder drugs. He
stated he wished there were not so many unknowns to the
people Alaskans have chosen to represent them and expressed
that everyone should have come more prepared in reading the
initiative and understanding the laws and things Alaskans
are up against. Mainly, he remarked, the legislature
should protect the rights of Alaskan citizens in Alaska
communities in order that individuals do not unnecessarily
become criminals due to an act that does not harm anyone
else.
12:27:18 PM
TOM TOUGAS stated he is the owner of Major Marine Tours
which is a marine ferry boat and tour company that must
follow the federal regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard. He
commented that this initiative will create confusion among
the workforce and difficulties for employers due to the
conflict between federal laws and the initiative. He
expressed concern about the impact on Alaskan youth in
order to benefit outside profit-making corporations,
particularly in small communities. He noted that earlier
testimony related there is a human side to this, but it
makes no sense to subject Alaskan children to this issue
when it is really to benefit people outside of Alaska. He
offered additional concern regarding the impact on fetal
development, the personal cost, and cost to the state. He
offered that an individual can say marijuana is less
harmful than alcohol, but fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) in
Alaska is a devastating experience and each FAS child costs
the state over $1 million. He submitted that even though
it could be said marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, it
still may cost $500,000. The way the [initiative] is
written, the penalties are very low and as someone who
drives the Seward Highway every week he said he is very
concerned. He said he appreciates the fact that Alaska
increased the penalties for DUIs, to which he attributed
the lowering of highway deaths in Alaska. He expressed
concern that the initiative penalties appear to be
extremely low and, therefore, restrictions on enforcing the
impact of impaired driving would be low. He agrees with
prior testimony that Alaskans should stand back, stand
down, watch what happens in Washington and Colorado, and
not subject Alaskans and Alaskan children to this type of
abuse.
12:31:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 12:31 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Marijuana Initiative Support Letter~Hollie Levine.pdf |
SJUD 3/29/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana Initiative |
| Marijuana Initiative Support Letter~Beverly Frey.pdf |
SJUD 3/29/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana Initiative |
| Marijuana Initiative Support Letter~Linda Jackson.pdf |
SJUD 3/29/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana Initiative |
| Marijuana Initiative Support Letter~Sharen Rockefeller.pdf |
SJUD 3/29/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana Initiative |
| Marijuana Initiative Support Letter~Mike Posciri.pdf |
SJUD 3/29/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana Initiative |
| Marijuana Initiative Support Letter~John Shelp.pdf |
SJUD 3/29/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana Initiative |
| Written Testimony - Marijuana - Dean Guanelli.pdf |
SJUD 3/29/2014 9:00:00 AM |
Marijuana Initiative |