CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 56(JUD) "An Act relating to certain crimes involving controlled substances; and providing for an effective date." 6:16:51 PM LOI RICKER, STOP VALLEY THIEVES (via teleconference), testified about her personal experience dealing with drug addicts and the thefts that they commit. She opined that she could no longer hire men who have been incarcerated because she could not trust them not to steal. She said that beyond the initial monetary theft there was additional fear created by the actions of drug addicts. She said she took her offender to court and the case was dismissed, which made her feel unsupported. She opposed the legislation. She felt she had been unfairly treated by the court system during her court case. She stressed that the drug problem in her part of the state was an epidemic. Co-Chair Stoltze commended Stop Valley Thieves for their effective use of social media. 6:23:13 PM RICK ALLEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. He pointed out that the state's drug policy had remained the same since the Nixon Administration. He felt that the status quo of the last 40 years had not been successful. He believed that the legislation was a well-reasoned, common sense reform that would benefit many his clients. He believed that the bill would give the chance of redemption to people who made the foolish decision to possess a small amount of drugs. The lifelong consequences of a felony conviction were far-reaching and severe. He asserted that the programs outlined in the bill were working in 13 other states, without compromising public safety. 6:24:57 PM SETH MCMILLAN, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the legislation. He spoke of his unique window into the world and lives of a spectrum of drug addicts, dealers, police informants, and drug enforcement collaborators state-wide. He discussed the threshold limits for each type of drug addressed in the current bill version. He offered a rebuttal to Senator Dyson's response to questions from a March 18, 2014 public hearing (copy on file). He believed that the threshold limits should speak to the economic aspects specific to Alaska. He said that street drugs in Alaska cost 5 times more than a user would pay anywhere else in the Lower 48. He opined the financial incentive to bring wholesale purchase drugs into Alaska and send them into the street in small amounts and at inflated prices that an Alaskan addict would unquestionably pay for. He stressed that the destructive nature of addiction to hard core drugs precluded the addict from having legitimate employment and from being an earning and taxpaying member of society. He relayed that the drive to obtain the drugs made addicts commit property and violent crimes to fund their habit. He closed by speaking to the 2010 federal threshold act, which he believed had made it easier for dealers to carry and sell more drugs. He concluded that the establishment of threshold limits for certain hardcore drugs would have a severe impact on the ability of law enforcement to exercise discretion and the fair application of drug statues that already had criminal court rules and mitigating statutes in place that recognized the difference between a drug distributer and a drug user. 6:35:09 PM Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that Mr. McMillan spoke for the police department's employee association and not for the department itself. Mr. McMillan replied yes. Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the Anchorage Police Department and the Mayor of Anchorage had not offered a comment on the legislation. 6:36:05 PM MARY GEDDES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified that she had represented thousands of drug offenders in court. She opined that the war on drugs was a failure. She believed that the issue of drug abuse in the state was a non-partisan one. She shared that the number of Alaskan's being charged and convicted as drug offenders was increasing yearly; incarceration for both misdemeanor and felony drug offenses had increased by 63 percent since 2002. She relayed that the average length of stay for a felon in 2011 was 7.2 years. The increased costs and increased lengths of stay had not proven statistically to be effective in reducing recidivism. She said that the national statistics had shown that incarceration alone as a solution does not work. She explained that things that had been shown to work included intervention and community based treatment. She believed that the legislation would provide an opportunity for meaningful rehabilitation and reformation. She spoke to the federal law as it compared to Alaska law. She explained that, on the federal level, simple possession for most drugs had been reduced to a misdemeanor and there was no felony conviction for the simple possession of drugs. She said that Alaska had many felony penalties for the possession of different kinds of drugs. She urged the committee dial back sanctions that were expensive and ineffective and allow for a greater emphasis on treatment opportunities. 6:43:58 PM MIKE WALSH, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified in opposition to SB 56. He believed that the passage of SB 56 would send the wrong message to young people concerning drug use and would lead to future overdoses. He said that the bill was a radical proposal and that California and Colorado had been wise to pass on drug re-classification when similar measures were proposed in 2012. He thought that the bar had been placed too low for the public safety implications and purported benefits of the bill. He challenged the idea that passing the bill would alleviate prison overcrowding. He relayed that in Alaska courts, an offender on probation for an offense covered by SB 56, without significant criminal history, would receive many chances to straighten out while under court supervision before facing the prospect of a felony conviction. He asserted that there was already a sentencing mechanism in the state that balanced the public safety impact of addiction to substances against the need to provide the chance to rehabilitate. He warned that the bill could leave drug addicts on the streets unsupervised. He said that incarceration for a considerable amount of time was a necessary and valuable experience for people with years of recovery behind them. He warned that reducing the penalties for offenses would not motivate offenders to begin and complete treatment. 6:52:05 PM KATE BURKHART, ADVISORY BOARD ON ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE, spoke in support for SB 56. She testified that the board did not view the legislation as a change in public policy that would condone or legitimize the use of illicit drugs. She echoed previous concerns about addiction fueled crime and deaths due to drug abuse. She relayed that the board did not believe that the bill would further those social problems. She said that the board viewed the bill as an opportunity to intervene and shift first and second time offenders away from a lifestyle fueled by drug abuse toward a lifetime of recovery and contribution to community. She appreciated that the bill would require a defendant convicted of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the 5th degree would be mandated to go to screening, evaluation, referral, and treatment if appropriate. She asserted that the mandate would a first or second time offender could be shifted away from the traditional incarceration to rehabilitation and community management. She offered an example that evidence of therapeutic justice was effective. 6:55:21 PM Representative Wilson asked whether treatment programs currently existed. Ms. Burkhart replied that the ASAP programs would have to be modified to meet the requirements of the bill. She said that the programs that could be funded by the Recidivism Reduction Fund in SB 64 would be a way to expand capacity to meet the needs of people referred under the changes contemplated in SB 56. 6:57:24 PM Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. CSSB 56(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.