HB 75-MARIJUANA ESTAB. REG; LOCAL ELECTION  1:02:55 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to the regulation of marijuana by municipalities; and providing for an effective date." 1:02:56 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:02:56 to 1:04:30 p.m. 1:04:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt proposed CS to HB 75, Version 29-LS0345\V, Martin, 3/23/15, as the working document. There being no objection Version V was before the committee. 1:05:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, thanked Chair LeDoux for working with her on the committee substitute and turned testimony over to her aide. 1:05:50 PM HEATH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased the following "Explanation of Changes" [original punctuation provide]: Title (Page 1, lines 1-6) - The title has been significantly tightened from previous versions. Section 2 (Page 2, line 21-22) - The household plant limit has been increased from 12 to 24 plants. Also, the term "residence" has been replaced with the term "dwelling" to be more consistent with municipal ordinances. LAA Legal has indicated that Statute treats the two terms as functionally interchangeable. Section 11 (Page 6, line 22) - the addition of the phrase "consistent with the" referring to the Administrative Procedures Act was included at the requests of municipalities in order to prevent conflict with their own ordinances. This would allow them to use their own version of the Administrative Procedures Act. Section 14 (Page 7, lines 9-14) - This provision was included after the discovery of a potential circumstance regarding a "gap" in potential enforcement. The way the original provision was written, a scenario was envisioned where a 2nd class borough (FNSB and MSB, for example), which does not have general public health or police powers, may have issued a registration but the borough's enforcement would be limited only to the revocation of the registration. This provides that the holder of the registration is ALSO subject to state regulation or enforcement. Section 16 (Page 7, line 23) - Similar to the change made in section 11 above, this allows municipalities to use local ordinances that are substantially similar or "consistent with" AS 44.62, the Administrative Procedures Act. Several sections have been renumbered accordingly, as a result of the changes listed above. 1:06:50 PM MR. HILYARD said the household plant limit was increased from 12 plants to 24 plants as Chair LeDoux mentioned during the last committee hearing there was confusion as to whether there was an existing limit on the books. He related that Mr. Dennis Wheeler, Municipality of Anchorage, sent Mr. Hilyard the [2006] Darrin Hotrum v. State of Alaska, 130 P.3d 965 (Alaska), case that dealt with the issue [of 24 plants]. Mr. Hilyard then stated there is existing statute making reference to 24 (Indisc.). AS 11.71.040[a](3)(G), which reads: (G) 25 or more plants of the genus cannabis; MR. HILYARD related that anything in excess of 25 plants under current criminal law is presumed possession with intent to distribute, and anything under 25 plants is presumed to be for personal use consistent with Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975) and Noy v. State of Alaska, 83 P.3d 538, 544- 45 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003) decisions. He referred to Section 11, page 6, line 22, and advised "there is an addition of the phrase 'consistent with the'" which has to do with the Alaska Administrative Procedures Act. He said it was noted that a number of the larger municipalities have their own functional ordinances that act as an Administrative Procedures Act. He explained that phrases allows them to use their own ordinances and prevent any potential confusion between what they have on their books and what the Alaska Administrative Procedures Act provides for. 1:08:23 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked for clarification. MR. HILYARD advised he is referring to page 6, line 22-23, which read: ... These procedures shall be consistent with the [SUBJECT TO ALL] requirements of AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act). 1:08:42 PM CHAIR LEDOUX referred to [Sec. 2, AS 17.38.020] and asked if there was a change on page 2, lines 5-31 through Page 3, lines 1-5, and further asked and it was in the previous CS. MR. HILYARD said it was in the previous CS and offered a brief history from the Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. He explained that municipal attorneys that assisted in crafting this legislation asked for additional sideboards on defining what "assisting" properly means. Legislative Legal and Research Services provided the language in the bill and there has not been a change since the "S" version. 1:09:59 PM MR. HILYARD pointed to Sec. 14, Page 7, lines 9-14, and stated this amendment was identified by Representative Keller in that there was a gap in potential enforcement. He used the example that second class boroughs do not have general police powers or health powers. The way the initiative language read, if the municipality issued a registration and the registrant acted improperly, the municipality itself would not have the ability to enforce and would have to depend entirely on the state. The gap was closed in that the state also has enforcement authority for activities on commercial marijuana establishments at any time. He referred to Sec. 16, page 7, line 23, and stated it is similar to the change made to the Administrative Procedures Act provision in Sec. 11. It allows municipalities to use local ordinances that are substantially similar or "consistent with" AS 44.62, the Administrative Procedures Act. He described the language as "clean up" so that municipalities were not unnecessarily bound to particular language that might conflict with their own ordinances. Lastly, he explained, several of the sections throughout the remainder of the bill have been renumbered accordingly as a result of drafting changes. 1:11:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Sec. 5, page 3, line 18, and questioned the rationale of "half of the registration application fee," as to whether it was looked at in the context of responsibilities that will be shared for the enforcement, regulation, and cost of application. MR. HILYARD stated he could not answer that question because the language came directly from the initiative. Essentially, he said he found Sec. 5 non-substantive because the only real change pertaining to HB 75 was primarily the reference from "local government" to "municipality." 1:13:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to [Sec. 2, AS 17.38.020(2), page 2, lines 21-23], and asked for an explanation as to why the language changed from 12 plants to 24 plants [for personal use]. MR. HILYARD reiterated that there is existing statute in Title 11 stipulating that anything over 25 plants is a criminal charge of possession with intent to distribute, or misconduct involving a controlled substance. He described the presumption being that under Ravin and Noy, 24 plants is for personal use. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the cite. MR. HILYARD advised it should be in his packet and is AS 11.71.040(3)(G). 1:15:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to [Sec. 9, AS 17.38.110(b)], page 6, line 4, and opined that criminal penalties can only be set by a First Class Borough or a Home Rule Borough and not a broader ... this uses the term municipality which would include both, but it also includes others, so the language should be tightened up a bit, he related. MR. HILYARD advised that it certainly was not the intention of the Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee to provide municipalities with powers they do not currently possess. He referred to a legal memo from Ms. Hilary Martin, Legislative Legal and Research Services written earlier this month that addressed that question. AS 29.25.070, which read: (a) For the violation of an ordinance, a municipality may by ordinance prescribe a penalty not to exceed a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for 90 days. For a violation that cannot result in incarceration or the loss of a valuable license, a municipality may allow disposition of the violation without court appearance and establish a schedule of fine amounts for each offense. MR. HILARY deferred to Ms. Martin, or a municipal attorney on line, for further clarification. 1:16:55 PM DENNIS WHEELER, Municipal Attorney, Legal Department, Municipality of Anchorage asked Representative Keller to repeat his question. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that the question may be more appropriately for the drafter of the legislation. He pointed to page 6, line 4, regarding the municipality and established civil and criminal penalties. His concern is that the legislation may be creating a power for other municipality types that was not intended according to the sponsor. MR. WHEELER replied that he represents a Home Rule Borough and he does not know the ins and outs of jurisdictions that are not Home Rule Boroughs. He stated they have a significant number of laws that are local misdemeanor offense laws that are enforced every day through the police department. As Representative Keller noted, his question might be better for someone in the state to answer with respect to whether or not this opens the door to Second Class Boroughs and so forth, he said. He offered that this legislation clarifies that a Home Rule Borough can continue to enact misdemeanor offense ordinances. 1:19:25 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:19 to 1:21 p.m. 1:21:42 PM CHAIR LEDOUX advised the committee could consider a conceptual amendment if it is necessary. 1:21:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he is willing to offer a conceptual amendment and pointed to [Sec. 18, AS 17.38.200(c)], page 8, line 22, " ... and the board is not required to approve the application." He questioned if it is clear that the board is always referring to the state control board. The conceptual amendment he would propose is just that the drafters would review it and ascertain it is clear without unintended consequences. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded to Chair LeDoux that he is asking whether the board is referring to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board), or if it could apply to some useful regulatory board. MR. HILYARD responded that the language is directly from the initiative. He said, in the absence of a Marijuana Control Board, he presumed the board is the ABC Board as the initiative language provides that the legislature may enact or adopt a Marijuana Control Board. 1:23:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER advised that putting it on the record is enough as the drafter should review the use of the word "board" to ascertain it is clear throughout the legislation. MR. HILYARD responded that the initiative sponsors drafted this language, within which the drafter used relative portions of AS 17.38. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the language that is passed is the product of the legislature. He opined that once the law passes, the legislature can't go back and say the confusion factor is in there and it's not our fault. He expressed that the drafter must ascertain that the language is clear as the legislature has that responsibility. 1:24:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that Sec. 9 is technically the initiative's language except changing "local government" to "municipality," and adding "and criminal." MR. HILYARD responded "That is correct." 1:25:41 PM CHAIR LEDOUX advised that public testimony is closed and invited testimony is open. 1:26:09 PM MR. WHEELER described the bill as a good product and that his office supports this version of the bill. He noted that when the state determines regulations and statutes, and whether there will be a marijuana control board, municipal governments will have basic parameters within which to regulate at the local level. 1:28:01 PM AMY MEAD, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Law Department, City and Borough of Juneau voiced her support and appreciation and stated that the bill contains important provisions left unanswered by the initiative. She opined these provisions will assist [municipalities] in drafting local legislation necessary to responsibly regulate new business as part of this process. She expressed her appreciation that the bill includes the definition of "assisting," as it provides a protest process, recognizes marijuana clubs as a type of marijuana establishment, fixes the Administrative Procedure Act issue, and allows that criminal sanctions are allowed for time, place, and manner violations. These provision are consistent with other land use regulations and the power provided to municipalities under AS 29.35.010 and AS 29.25.070. 1:29:50 PM CHAIR LEDOUX requested that Ms. Mead and Mr. Wheeler remain on the line. 1:30:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt [Amendment 1], labeled 29- LS0345\V.1, which read: Page 2, line 21: Delete "24" Insert "12" Delete "12" Insert "six" REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to page 2, line 21, and stated that he believes changing the number of [personal use] plants from 24 to 12 is a happy medium between zero and 24. "I don't think we need a forest" of plants in anyone's dwelling, he opined. CHAIR LEDOUX objected. 1:31:31 PM CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that the terms of the initiative allow 6 plants per person regardless of how many people live in a household, and 24 plants is a compromise. Nevertheless, she said, in order to make matters easier for municipalities in establishing a bright line, it appears appropriate to use the white line municipalities and police departments have used for years to determine intent to sell. She noted that she maintains her objection. 1:32:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that the closer the committee stays to the language of the initiative, the better case the state will have if it comes down to a lawsuit. She offered she will not vote in favor of the amendment. 1:32:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he supports the amendment and pointed out that any number picked over the number six is an arbitrary number. The committee is setting a bright line and, he noted, there is testimony "we" don't care where the legislature sets the line as long as a line is set. He does not see any justification in going to the maximum allowed by going to 24. 1:33:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked that he supports Chair LeDoux and will not vote in favor of the amendment. He expressed that he views 24 plants as a compromise and a bright line in light of the Holtrum case, and the previously articulated reasons. 1:34:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he associates himself with Representative Claman's comments. 1:34:48 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, and Keller voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Foster, Millett, Claman, Gruenberg, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 2-5. 1:35:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt [Amendment 2], labeled 29- LS0345\V.2, which read: Page 6, line 4: Delete "and criminal" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to page 6, line 4, wherein the language would delete "and criminal" as he is committed to supporting the language of the initiative. Although, he stated, he was a "no" vote on the initiative, he recognizes that the majority of the public voted in favor of the initiative language except the language only references "civil penalties." He opined that as a matter of standard statutory construction, if the Alaska Supreme Court was asked to analysis the initiative's language it would presume that every word had meaning. He further opined the Alaska Supreme Court would presume that words not included, were intended to not be included. He noted that to add the words "and criminal" is changing the jurisdiction by taking language different from the intent of the voters. CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion. 1:37:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that Representative Claman's logic that because the word "criminal" is not in the initiative means that the very intent was to not allow for a criminal penalty is a leap. He opined that when the initiative was written, the sponsors would have made the statement that there would be no civil or criminal penalties allowed. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that this particular bill relates to the regulation of marijuana, and not to the question of civil penalties. He referred to a memo from Hilary Martin, Legislative Legal and Research Services, dated 3/2/15, and stated that on page 2, paragraph 2, Ms. Martin specifically wrote "it is possible that the intent of this language is to prevent a municipality from imposing criminal penalties on violations of an ordinance as only civil penalties are mentioned." He argued that it is not a leap of faith because the committee is not dealing with the broad scheme of criminal penalties, but is focused solely on the question of regulations affecting those that get permits for a marijuana sales and growing business. He said that the Alaska Supreme Court would read the fact that there is no language about criminal penalties and would look at it as a reason to limit the powers to just civil penalties. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that was exactly his point and asked the sponsor to reiterate why the language was put in, for the sake of context. 1:39:46 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked the municipal attorneys on line how they regulate and enforce, whether they do enforce, or whether they have criminal ordinances with respect to alcohol sales. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested historical background for the committee on the discussion around inserting this language. MR. HILYARD said this was an issue in early discussions of developing HB 75 to its current iteration. He noted that Title 29 provides certain municipalities with limited criminal penalty authority, and the rationale was that it was not abundantly clear how Title 29 would apply. The municipalities that do have general police authority prefer to make it clear that they would continue to maintain the ability to adopt criminal penalties specifically with time, place, and manner, violations of commercial establishments. It was suggested by municipal attorneys that it would be unlikely that local assembly or city councils may adopt those, they simply wanted to have that ability in the event it was necessitated. 1:41:39 PM CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to alcohol establishments and asked whether municipalities are allowed to have criminal penalties for violations of ordinances or regulations with respect to time, place, and manner. MS. MEAD responded "The City and Borough of Juneau does." MR. WHEELER responded that under the Anchorage Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 35, there are a number of ordinances that make it misdemeanor offenses to violate the rules including hours of service, serving under aged persons, allowing person who are intoxicated on premises, and so forth. 1:42:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports the amendment and noted that the language of the bill reads a "municipality may establish civil and criminal penalties." "Read directly and literally," he opined, it does not limit it to municipalities that already have the power. He further opined it could be read as giving municipalities that don't already have that power additional power to do so. He remarked he does not know if that argument would be accepted in view of the fact there is no amendment to the governing statutes in Title 29 on municipal powers, but it could create litigation. Whether it should not violate the initiative due to the language on line 4 does not say "may establish only civil" or "may establish civil but not criminal." He opined the court would apply the rule that because the initiative does not just say "penalties," but says "civil penalties" that it would be read as excluding criminal. He explained that normally the Rules of Statutory Construction only require that things that are included be put into the statute. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded to Representative Gruenberg that the committee is not a court and it is deals with whether or not to put [certain] language into Alaska Statutes. According to Representative Gruenberg's argument, he related, to be certain the language is crystal clear that it would have to include language that reads that the "civil and not criminal." The committee's role is to determine intent and clarify what goes into statute. He referred to Representative Gruenberg's argument and said he intends to propose a conceptual amendment that limits this section to municipalities that already have the power to establish criminal statutes. CHAIR LEDOUX remarked with regard to the conceptual amendment, after hearing from the City and Borough of Juneau, and the Municipality of Anchorage regarding the regulation of liquor, she does not have a problem with this language. She pointed out that it does not appear to be violative of the spirit of the initiative in that the legislation allows municipalities to regulate marijuana establishments in the same manner. 1:47:19 PM CHAIR LEDOUX said she maintained her objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Foster, and Claman voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Keller, Lynn, Millett, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3. 1:47:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER proposed a conceptual amendment [Amendment 3], on page 6, line 3, after the word municipality insert "with power to establish civil and criminal penalties" and then continue on with the language in the bill. He offered that his intention is that only municipalities currently with the power to set criminal penalties be allowed to set criminal penalties. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised he supports [Amendment 3]. CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that Amendment 3 helps with the problem. CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. [There being no further objection Amendment 3 passes the House Judiciary Standing Committee.] 1:50:49 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:50 to 1:52 p.m. 1:52:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN [moved to adopt] Amendment 4, which read: Page 2, line 29, through page 3, line 5: Delete "; assisting under this paragraph does not  include  (A) using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting  marijuana in excess of the amount allowed in this  section;  (B) possessing, growing, processing, or transporting  marijuana plants in excess of the amount allowed in  this section;  (C) growing marijuana plants for another person in a  place other than that other person's dwelling" CHAIR LEDOUX [objected]. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred the committee to [page 2, line 29, through page 3, line 5], and advised there are three layers of the existing language that was added into the CS before the committee. With regard to assisting, he found the language vague, ambiguous and confusing and, therefore, submits [Amendment 4]. He referred to Sec. 2, "notwithstanding whatever else is the law it will be lawful and not criminal under Alaska law to possess, use, display, purchase, transport, marijuana accessories, Sub (2) grow marijuana, (3) transfer one ounce or less of marijuana (4) consume marijuana, and then using the specific language of the initiative, paragraph (5) is that you can assist another person who is 21 years of age or older in doing all of 1-4, which was assisting, possessing marijuana." Previously marijuana is not allowed, possession of marijuana is generally illegal, except as protected by Ravin. Currently the language is what was previously (Indisc.) can't be now that it is no longer prohibited as now it is specifically lawful to do this and now, he related, the language is trying to create a negative on the negative by trying to say what assisting is. He pointed out Sub (C) of the assisting language "growing marijuana plants for another person in a place other than that other person's dwelling." He said he understands this language was urged by the municipalities and had questions regarding Sub (C) how can the person watering marijuana plants as part of the housesitting responsibilities answer "Sub (5) where it basically says a person can assist in somebody to grow plants at their house and (5)(C) trying to say you can't do it." He stated it seems they are in contradiction and he asked the municipal attorneys to explain how this works. MS. MEAD responded that she did not ask for [the language] but believes this paragraph would allow someone to have their plants watered while on vacation, it would prohibit a person sending a note to 20 of the neighbors telling them "I" will grow their plants for them in my house and ending up with 80 plants. She opined that is what it was intended to prohibit, to not allow a communal growing situation in one dwelling. 1:56:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned if the concern is that someone will try to be a community grower how does that get a person that is growing more than 24 plants, get around the 24 plant limit that is part of the committee substitute Sub (2) that is specifically permitted. He further questioned that the police would ask a person how many plants they have and if they have more than 24 plants, there is a problem. MS. MEAD replied that if there are not enough adults living in the house. She posited that the number of plants allowed in a particular dwelling are still tied to the number of adults in the house. The assisting language prohibits someone from doing a "work around" and growing plants for someone not residing in the home by claiming they are assisting their friend in growing his six plants - just growing them at "my" house. 1:58:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that currently there is a statute dealing with legal accountability based on the conduct of another, AS 11.16.110 [Legal Accountability Based Upon the Conduct of Another], the aiding and abetting statute. He asked how someone with 30 plants in their house ... "how can a person assist someone to grow marijuana and how do we basically try to negate what the language has specifically told them they could do." MS. MEAD remarked that the aiding and abetting statute does not apply as it is not a criminal activity for every adult over the age of 21 to grow six plants in his/her home. She reiterated it is trying to prevent a situation where there is one person growing more than the number of plants otherwise authorized by claiming they are for someone else. 1:59:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said the current provisions allow 24 plants in a person's own home, and do not allow him to have 24 plants in Chair LeDoux's home. He said he is only allowed 24 plants in his own home but he can say he is assisting her then, he questioned, isn't Chair LeDoux now in for aiding and abetting him in having more than 24 plants. MS. MEAD answered that it would be Representative Claman that would be in trouble, but a person cannot have 24 plants in their home unless there are four adults living there. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that what is being proposed in the statute, 24 plants is the line and a person could have 24 plants whether they have ... CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that Representative Claman's description is not what everyone intended the line. 2:00:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the amendment is confusing because it does not address ... the initiative specifically says that a person can assist another person in all these activities. Now, he said, it is trying to say that a person cannot assist those persons in those very same activities. He related that he does not see how the person with 36 plants in their home, what is the basis for saying "I'm assisting somebody" that the assistance somehow creates a defense. CHAIR LEDOUX said "I don't understand what you are talking about at all right now." 2:01:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the committee tries to write language so clearly that public defenders, prosecutors, judges, and legislators can understand and this provision is a triple negative. CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that she does not a problem with the language as it reads that everyone is allowed six plants, but if one person is caught with twelve plants they cannot say "these are my six, and the other six belong to someone else and I am just assisting them to grow their six plants." 2:03:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG conveyed that there are other scenarios this will arise in as the person watering the plants is assisting the other person. He opined he would like the language to be clearer. 2:05:20 PM MR. HILYARD pointed to page 2, lines 29-31 through page 3, lines 1-5, and said in reviewing (a)[5], "assisting under this paragraph does not include using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting, marijuana in excess of the amount allowed in this section." A person can water their friend's plants all day long so long as those plants are in their friend's home. CHAIR LEDOUX offered that a friend cannot go away for a while and bring their plants to another person's home. MR. HILYARD responded his reading of the provision is that he could water his friend's plants at his friend's home. 2:06:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT remarked that a person can babysit plants but cannot bring the plants to their home. 2:06:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked why a neighbor cannot bring 24 plants to person's home when the person does not have any plants. He included that the 24 plants represent four adults living in the neighbor's home. MR. HILYARD responded that as long as there are not more than six plants in a [single] individual's home at a time, it really doesn't matter. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN restated his question of why the person assisting his neighbor, who has four adults living in the neighbor's house, bring [24 plants] to his house to water and assist the neighbor. MR. HILYARD replied "No," because the committee is defining it that does not constitute assisting for the purposes of this paragraph. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN further questioned that under this language "I specifically could not bring them to my house, whereas, under ... if you don't have these ... except the language that is in the proposed ... that I am proposing to delete ... you didn't have that language there wouldn't be a basis to say I could take them to my house." MR. HILYARD replied that he could take six plants, if there were no other plants in his home. 2:08:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that lines 29-30, "assisting under this paragraph does not include ..." is confusing. What the language should say is that even if a person is helping someone over 21, the person is criminally liable if they do the following things ... He expressed that would be one way of making the language clearer. 2:10:10 PM CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she does not have a problem with the language and will maintain her objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives Foster, Keller, Lynn, Millett, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 2-5. 2:10:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 75, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 75(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. 2:11:18 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:11 to 2:13.