SB 30-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES  2:21:27 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be Senate CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(FIN), "An Act relating to controlled substances; relating to marijuana; relating to crimes and offenses related to marijuana and the use of marijuana; relating to open marijuana containers; relating to established villages and local options; relating to delinquent minors; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee were SB 30, Versions Q and T.] 2:21:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt HCSCSSB 30, Version 29- LS0231\Q, Martin, 4/3/15 as the working document. There being no objection, Version Q was before the committee. CHAIR LEDOUX announced that Version Q and [Version T] would be discussed during the meeting. 2:22:42 PM CHAIR LEDOUX responded to Representative Gruenberg's question and reiterated that the committee would hear the two versions and compare each. 2:23:40 PM AMY SALTZMAN, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, referred to an earlier version [N] of which there was a House companion, and stated it offered an affirmative defense approach and that concerns were expressed because it was at odds with the intent of the initiative. She offered that creating a defense to a legal activity would cause the expense of avoiding punishment or avoiding prosecution to the person participating in a lawful marijuana activity. The Senate Judiciary Standing Committee found these concerns to be persuasive and redrafted the bill to assure that the activities addressed in the initiative would be affirmatively legal and removed them from controlled substances. She advised it was the only other option presented to the committee by Legislative Legal and Research Services at the time, and later they offered another approach found in the Senate Finance Committee version. She explained that the substantive sections, where crimes were created with implementation of the initiative, are in Secs. 44-51. She noted that several different crimes were created, and were followed through in the Senate Finance Committee of are mirrored with the intent of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee, to some degree. 2:25:46 PM JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, explained that the Senate Finance Committee added marijuana back into the controlled substance schedules. He offered that when an affirmative defense approach was attempted in the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee it met with vocal opposition. The committee was advised by Legislative Legal and Research Services that rather than rely on an affirmative defense, to put it back into the controlled substance schedule and use a non- applicability provision to say that the conduct is allowed under the initiative. He explained that local option provisions were included, essentially opting out by default established villages in the unorganized borough and giving them the possibility of opting in. He further explained that changes were made to the open container law. 2:27:09 PM CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that, under the current SB 30, places like the unorganized borough would be able to have a marijuana shop, but if it was not in an established village it wouldn't be able to have anything along the road system. MR. SHILLING responded that the provision is that only those in an established village can opt in for the commercial side, and everything else in the unorganized borough is opted out with no provision to opt in. He agreed that there would be some places in the unorganized borough on the road that would not have the possibility of a marijuana establishment. 2:28:23 PM CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the language regarding how terrible marijuana is and asked where that language came from. MR. SHILLING surmised that Chair LeDoux was referring to [Sec. 1-2, Purpose and Findings sections of Version T] and said he was not sure where the language originated as the amendment came from Senator Lyman Hoffman's office, but he could get the information to the committee. 2:28:52 PM MS. SALTZMAN stated that the amendment was added when the amendment from Senator Hoffman was added to the bill. MS. SALTZMAN responded to Chair LeDoux that the language was added in the Senate Finance Committee. 2:30:02 PM CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the big difference between the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version and the bill from the Senate are the felony aspects of the bill. MR. SHILLING responded in the affirmative and opined that the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version does not include felony conduct and noted that the highest penalty is a class A misdemeanor which carries up to one year in jail and $10,000 fine. He pointed out that the Senate Finance Committee version includes three felonies, which are: possessing 25 or more plants, possessing a pound or more of marijuana, and furnishing marijuana to a minor twice in five years. He explained that the [last] felony is congruent to furnishing alcohol to a minor. He related that the only other felony conduct in Title 4, contains provisions related to delivering alcohol to a dry village. 2:31:26 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there are any other differences between the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version and the final bill. MS. SALTZMAN responded that there were some differences in class A misdemeanors, class B misdemeanors, and what was considered violations. She explained that with regard to possession, the Senate Finance Committee added that if a person had three, but less than sixteen ounces of marijuana outside the home, or twelve to twenty-four plants it would be a class A misdemeanor. Those were changed from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version. On the same note, she offered, having two but less than three ounces of marijuana outside a person's home, or possessing seven to eleven marijuana plants would be misconduct and a class B misdemeanor. 2:32:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER referred to the question of unorganized boroughs and surmised that within the Senate Finance Committee version a community such as Tok, which is under the Tok Community Umbrella Corporation, is not a village, and is in an unorganized borough, that there are no provisions allowing Tok to sell marijuana. MR. SHILLING advised that if Tok is not a municipality, not an established village, and in the unorganized borough, it would not have any recourse to opt in. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER questioned whether within the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version there is a provision for communities such as Tok. MR. SHILLING responded that the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version contains the traditional local option law as seen for alcohol, and by default they would have to actively opt out. 2:33:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to a bill passed on the House floor by Representative Tilton, and questioned whether that bill covered the provisions currently covered in this bill. She asked whether the House Judiciary Standing Committee is still dealing with opt in/opt out, unorganized borough, dry, damp, and wet issues in this bill. She related her understanding that the bill sent to the Senate included all of those provisions in that legislation. CHAIR LEDOUX offered that Representative Millett was correct but it is difficult to determine within 14 days what bill is going to make it and what bill is not going to make it so the committee is considering these issues right now. MR. SHILLING offered that he is not an expert on HB 75, but it is his understanding that the language for local option mirrors the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version. 2:34:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if this committee will rehash [HB 75] again in [SB 30], or just focus on decriminalization. CHAIR LEDOUX responded that her intent is to basically focus on the decriminalization. 2:35:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned if it is appropriate to obtain a sense from the committee regarding how it wants to approach SB 30. CHAIR LEDOUX relayed that without actually voting on amendments, the idea is to determine a sense of the committee as to whether it wishes to go the route of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version, which had been discussed at length in this committee, or go the route of the Senate Finance Committee version, or go a different route. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered that she would like to fix the Senate's mess. 2:36:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a side-by-side comparison [of the versions] to determine what the choices are. CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, but said that the way the versions have gone are far apart in that they are a totally different technique, philosophy, etc. In that regard, she offered, a side-by-side comparison will not work. 2:36:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined there is a lot to be gained by not inventing too many wheels in one bill. He stated that SB 30 has more to do with criminal sanctions and if the committee works under the basic understanding that HB 75, which passed last week, deals with the local option issues that this committee should focus on criminal penalties and not much more. 2:38:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that he does not want to write off the work of a committee simply saying they didn't consider all of the bill. He opined that the committee has an obligation to make a rational decision with both versions in mind. CHAIR LEDOUX responded that is the reason both versions are before the committee today, in order to make a decision as a committee as to where it wants to go. She said she leans toward the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version, but she did not want to simply strip the bill and substitute the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version without a discussion in this committee. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he did not mean to imply anything other than the fact that there is no reason to take a sense of the committee without [reviewing both versions]. CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the House Judiciary Standing Committee calendar and noted it will be spending plenty of time on SB 30. 2:40:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that someone from Senate Finance Committee testify in order for the committee to understand its thinking. CHAIR LEDOUX responded that Mr. Shilling is staff to Senator John Coghill, and questioned whether Senator Coghill is on the Senate Finance Committee. MR. SHILLING noted that Senator Coghill is not on the Senate Finance Committee, although Mr. Shilling assisted in carrying the bill through that committee. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he prefers to be certain both sides of the argument are given an opportunity. CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that someone from Senate Finance Committee is welcome to offer its version. 2:41:24 PM CHAIR LEDOUX open public testimony. 2:41:37 PM CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she had previously asked Cynthia Franklin, during a House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting, that from the perspective of the regulator which version made more sense. She said she believes Ms. Franklin responded that it made more sense from a regulatory perspective to leave marijuana out of controlled substances. 2:42:28 PM CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board), Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, agreed with Chair LeDoux's depiction of her statement and said that the preliminary considerations document the ABC Board released during a February board meeting contains a section addressing this issue. She advised that the board joined with her and the enforcement staff in recommending an approach removing the substance from the Controlled Substances Act and creating crimes around this substance in one place along with the regulations. She offered that Title 4, is modeled in this manner that when looking for the rules around commercial and non-commercial alcohol, other than the vehicle crime in Title 28, all of the alcohol crimes are in Title 4. She described the carve out approach that has crimes involving the substance in the Controlled Substances Act, in that alcohol itself is not illegal but there is conduct around alcohol that is illegal. Title 4, explains what can and cannot be done around alcohol. The voters said they do not want marijuana to be illegal in Alaska, but do want some conduct around marijuana to be illegal which is reflected in AS 17.38. She indicated that speaking from a regulatory standpoint, it would be simpler to explain to everyone what the rules around marijuana are, what can and can't be done with that dangerous substance, in one place. She advised this is the reason the board recommended the substance be removed and that crimes be created in one place to mirror the scheme around alcohol. She further advised that she spoke with Colorado regulators regarding the "carve out system," and they stated it substantially injured their ability to shut down the black market and prevent diversion because the rules can be confusing for the public and law enforcement. She noted that a police officer has to determine whether the marijuana is illegal as a controlled substance Title 11 marijuana, or whether it is legal but regulated in Title 17 marijuana. She said that putting the police officer in that position while standing on the side of the road, from the board's perspective, is an undesirable way of regulating this substance with public safety in mind and preventing the diversion while staying on the right side of the federal rules (indisc.). 2:45:58 PM DOLLYNDA PHELPS, said with regard to the Senate Finance Committee version [Purpose} on page 1, she saw propaganda of the 1960s-1980s, and urged that current information and medical research be involved. She said she found issue with the 16 ounce limit and everything produced from six plants as there should not be any limit within the house, but there should be a limit outside of the home for safety precautions. In truly following the initiative there should not be any limits within the home, she offered. She stated that cannabis should not be considered a controlled substance and should stay off of the VIA schedule list. She related that her research found that under Schedule VI there is "no currently accepted medical use in the United States for the substance." She referred to U.S. Patent No. 6630507, "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and Neuroprotectants" is assigned to the United States of America as represented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Clearly, there is an accepted medical use for cannabis and it does not belong on Schedule VIA which is in conflict with the current form of SB 30 that does put cannabis in a Schedule VI category. 2:48:30 PM CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to Ms. Franklin's opinion wherein it might make it better for regulators to control and regulate both liquor and marijuana if they are not in controlled substances, and that both are treated the same. She asked what difference it makes as long as a person is not arrested whether [cannabis] is considered a controlled substance or not. MS. PHELPS responded that by definition cannabis does not belong [in controlled substances] as there are many accepted medical uses in the United States. She noted that in going further "there is a larger animal at hand, even federally." She related that the initiative clearly states that concentrates are a product of cannabis, and that marijuana and marijuana products would become legal, and that several petitions were signed and sent to the Senate supporting this. She offered that concentrates are commonly used which require enough strength to benefit patients suffering from cancer, Parkinson's disease, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy, among others. A person's right to survival should not be diminished by the United States or the State of Alaska, she opined. She stated that (indisc.) concentrated form otherwise there are not enough health benefits to relieve cancer or fibromyalgia [symptoms] and that research would offer more guidance 2:51:43 PM JASON HOWARD, referred to [Sec. 2], page 2, lines 24-25, which read: (2) several hundred adults and children are admitted into treatment each year in Alaska for marijuana abuse, with nearly 46 percent being children under 20 years of age; MR. HOWARD advised he has researched this issue and found the provision misleading in that it is possibly taken out of context wherein a child has a choice to go to juvenile detention or go to rehab for marijuana, as with adults. He said he also contacted researchers regarding issues of suicide and other problems that children have, and they found that studies have shown that IQ deficiency has led to self-harm, and that the researchers offered they never looked into how the body makes cannabinoids in children. He noted that he spoke with a therapist on the Kenai Peninsula who advised that almost half of the children he treats have a problem with self-harm. Mr. Howard said that when a person cuts themselves, the body heals with cannabinoids and noted he is confused as to why the legislature is not looking at these things. He referred to [Sec. 2], page 2, lines 26-28, which read: (3) there is evidence that some users become dependent on marijuana under the clinical standards applied by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV; ... MR. HOWARD referenced the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and stated that it should not be used as scientific data in that it was written from work groups and task forces, and is a guide for insurance companies. He explained that the DSM is not based on scientific data and that this information is actually written in the DSM itself, and therefore, is not a reliable source. He referred to [Sec. 2], page 3, lines 4-6, which read: (5) a significant percentage of persons in treatment for alcohol abuse also abuse a secondary drug, which may include marijuana; nevertheless, the relationship between marijuana and alcohol and other drugs is not fully understood; 2:54:37 PM MR. HOWARD stated his disagreement with the above provision in that there is plenty of research on how marijuana and cannabinoids affect the brain, and the reward system. He then referred to [Sec. 2], page 3, lines 7-14, which read: (6) marijuana consists of hundreds of different chemicals that can affect almost every organ and system in the body, including the lymph system, the heart, and the lungs; THC binds to receptors in the brain that should otherwise bind to naturally occurring brain chemicals; marijuana can affect memory, attention, judgment, and other cognitive functions and can impair motor coordination, time perception, and balance; marijuana smoke contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke; marijuana often contains bacteria or fungi that are dangerous to humans, and may be harvested and sold without removing pesticides and fungicides; MR. HOWARD disagreed with the above provision in that a person's body has a lipid signaling system that is performed by cannabinoids, and it regulates everything in the human body. Unfortunately, the provision implies it is a negative effect. The issue of bacteria and fungi being dangerous to humans is something that having [cannabis] controlled and regulated would be addressed. He referred to [Sec. 2], page 3, lines 15-16, which read: (7) about 40 percent of the adults arrested in this state who commit violent offenses have marijuana in their system at the time of the arrest; MR. HOWARD offered that this provision is also misleading in that most of the tests today do not test for active THC metabolites and test for inactive metabolites. A person could smoke one day and be tested 30 days later and still have those metabolites in their system. He said he disagrees with the six plant limit per household as he is a medical marijuana user, and a disabled veteran who was blown up by two improvised explosive devices (IEDs.) He related that he is on a large amounts of opioids, lorazepan, and heavy narcotics for anxiety, sleep, and migraines. He pointed out that all of those issues are eliminated with large amounts of cannabis an expressed concern regarding limiting cannabis to six plants for those who require large amounts of cannabis. 2:57:58 PM RACHELLE YEUNG, Marijuana Policy Project, offered support for the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee's version of SB 30 given that their suggestions were addressed. She then referred to Secs. 1-2, of the bill and stated they should be completely deleted in that Sec. 1, concerns opting out of the unorganized boroughs. She pointed out that this committee deemed that the unorganized borough should not be opted out and instead established villages within the borough should have the option to opt themselves out. She pointed to Sec. 2, and stated it should be stricken for its irrelevancy and unscientific findings, that it does not appear these findings were discussed during any of the hearings, and that she found it curious that by its language should make empty statutes. She offered the recommendation that the bill not ban delivery as it could affect medical patients with mobility issues who are home bound. She suggested reviewing the proposed fines or penalties for some of the crimes as they may not meet up with the standards set by the initiative. She pointed out that possibly a drafting error made it illegal for adults to display, use, or possess under an ounce of marijuana, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of the initiative. She suggested amending the definition of open marijuana containers to the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee's definition. [SB 30 was held over.] 3:02:05 PM