SB 173-SYNTHETIC DRUGS  2:42:38 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 173(JUD), "An Act relating to a prohibition on the possession, offer, display, marketing, advertising for sale, or sale of illicit synthetic drugs." 2:43:26 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:43 p.m. to 2:44 p.m. 2:44:30 PM EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer, Alaska State Legislature, speaking on behalf of Senator Meyer, sponsor of CSSB 173(JUD), informed the committee that the sponsor has made no changes to the bill since the previous hearing on 4/11/14; however, she pointed out that the sponsor worked extensively on the bill with the Department of Law (DOL); Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency; the Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration; the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration; and the Municipality of Anchorage Legal Department, Criminal Law (Prosecution). She acknowledged that the bill takes an unconventional route by targeting the packaging of synthetic drugs - rather than their chemical compounds - to get synthetic drugs off the street. This route has been implemented by a town in Maine without [legal] challenge thus far. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) implemented a related ordinance in January 2014, and has been successful at removing synthetic drugs from head shops, smoke shops, and convenience stores. In an effort to ensure that there would not be illegalization of legitimate substances by the proposed legislation, the bill requires that packaging meet one criterion from [section 1, subsection (b), paragraph (1)] of the bill and one criterion from [section 1, subsection (b), paragraph (2)] of the bill. Ms. Morledge further explained that the list of names of drugs [subparagraph G] could be removed from the bill and as long as the drugs met one of the other criteria in paragraph [(2)] and one of the criteria in [paragraph (1)], a case could be proven. CHAIR KELLER clarified that the aforementioned prohibitions are if the drug meets one criterion of section 1, [subsection (b), paragraph (1), or one criterion of section 1, subsection (b), paragraph (2)], of the bill. MS. MORLEDGE continued to explain that [CSSB 173(JUD)] makes very clear in the penalty section that a person who violates the proposed statute is guilty of a violation; therefore, the involvement of the Public Defender Agency and the Office of Public Advocacy was removed, which in turn generated new zero fiscal notes of which are now available. 2:48:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to why the sponsor decided to propose legislation on the statewide level, rather than have each municipality make that choice. MS. MORLEDGE said the sponsor was approached by MOA to proceed on a statewide level in order to prevent a person from avoiding prosecution by traveling beyond the municipal boundaries. 2:49:37 PM RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law, surmised that the main issue between the sponsor, PDA, and OPA is whether the bill addresses a criminal matter or a civil matter. He directed attention to the bill on page 3, lines 21 and 22, which read: (c) A person who violates AS 17.21.010 is guilty of a violation and, upon conviction, is punishable by a fine of not more than $500. MR. SVOBODNY, in order to prevent said violation from becoming a criminal matter, suggested the following clarifying language: A person who violates AS 17.21.010 is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $500.00. MR. SVOBODNY also suggested the addition of subsection (e) which read: (e) The burden of proof is by a preponderance of evidence. MR. SVOBODNY opined the aforementioned suggestions "get to the goal of the sponsor and of the office[s] of public advocacy and the public defender." In response to Representative Pruitt's point about the validity of drug street names, he advised one option is to remove the related section from the proposed statute for placement instead in the non-codified provisions of the bill. 2:53:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX observed that the bill is drafted with the intention of the violation being civil rather than criminal. The violation would be decided by a preponderance of evidence, and thus there is no right to a jury trial or to a public defender. However, the supporting documents give the impression that the proposed violation should be criminal. She asked whether there exists case law related to legislation that "phrase[s] something in a civil manner which you're really trying to criminalize and thus makes it so that people don't have their rights to trial by jury and changes the preponderance of evidence. Is there any law out there which talks about whether that's okay to do?" 2:54:49 PM MR. SVOBODNY said he did not know of any cases; however, he has examples of similar situations that have not been challenged in court. He recalled that the legislature, with the specific intent to eliminate jury trials, for first and second minor consuming offenses changed the law. The Alaska Court of Appeals said because the offenses include the loss of a [driver's] license, the offenders still had a right to an attorney and to a jury trial. The court of appeals did not say it was improper for the legislature to change the law. Mr. Svobodny explained the elimination of the offenses was designed to reduce costs. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX further questioned whether depriving people of the right to do business could be subject to "the same kind of arguments." MR. SVOBODNY gave the scenario in which the legislature eliminates the offense of tampering with gravestones, making this offense a civil matter but not changing its effect; he opined that legislators are policymakers and can decide whether an action is civil, criminal, or neither. 2:58:08 PM ELIZABETH RIPLEY, Executive Director, Mat-Su Health Foundation, stated that she was testifying in favor of HB 362 and SB 173. She informed the committee that the Mat-Su Health Foundation shares ownership in the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center and invests its profits back into the Mat-Su community to improve the health and wellness of Alaskans living in Mat-Su. Ms. Ripley said a recent community health needs assessment indicated that community members rank alcohol and substance abuse the top health issue in Mat-Su. The medical center has seen an increase of patients coming to the emergency department who have health issues due to the use of synthetic drugs. Thrive Mat-Su, the local substance abuse prevention coalition, helped author the original state legislation passed in 2011 - which focused on the composition of the drugs - and which has created challenges for enforcement as drug dealers introduce new chemicals and compositions. She advised that youth believe if a product is legally for sale and can be purchased, it is safe. If there is not a way to address the alteration of the drugs by dealers, it is necessary to curtail access to the drugs by youth through a different law that addresses the sale and marketing of substances. She said SB 173 is an evidence-based strategy used in other states to limit access to synthetic drugs and to decrease their use and their negative impact on individuals and communities. Importantly, this legislation sends a message to youth of the efforts to protect them from the dangers of synthetic drugs. Thrive Mat-Su also supports legislation that addresses the marketing and sale of synthetic drugs. The Mat-Su Health Foundation Board unanimously supports the passage of SB 173 and is actively supporting similar legislation at the local level. Ms. Ripley asked for expedited passage of the bill. 3:00:43 PM KELLI FARQUER said she was representing herself and voices that can no longer be heard from children under age who can purchase substances that are illegal, but that are readily available. The elimination of this drug can only be accomplished by eliminating the ability to purchase it, not by making it illegal. Ms. Farquer said she lost her son in November 2013, in Wasilla, for no other reason than it was available cheap, which her son interpreted to mean that the drug was safe. His death has been deemed undetermined due to the lack of laws against this type of drug. Her research has revealed that there are many deaths due to this type of synthetic drug and its high cost to civilization. Synthetic drugs are a worldwide epidemic and are mass-produced and sold at a 700 percent profit margin. To truly remove this drug from the market it must be too expensive to purchase or sell. There are no benefits to mankind from the drug. If the drug is illegal it will remain available because the profit is worth the risk; it is illegal in Florida and is still widely available. This legislation sets a good precedent for others to follow because support for this bill will save lives. Ms. Farquer asked the committee to support the bill and to urge other civic leaders to do the same in their states. 3:03:51 PM CHAIR KELLER, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER, in response to an earlier question as to why statewide legislation is being proposed, explained that many communities in Alaska do not have a municipal structure to make synthetic drugs illegal locally. He stressed the importance of statewide legislation to rural Alaska. 3:04:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG voiced his concern about the additional expense of statewide legislation for a program that has been successful in the Municipality of Anchorage and other municipalities. [CSSB 173(JUD) was held over.]