Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

01/28/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:07:44 PM Start
01:08:32 PM HB79|| SB30
02:56:14 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Joint with Senate JUD
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
-- Companion Bill --
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
        HB  79-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES                                                                    
        SB  30-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES                                                                    
1:08:32 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  79 "An  Act relating  to controlled  substances;                                                               
relating to  marijuana; relating  to driving motor  vehicles when                                                               
there  is  an open  marijuana  container;  and providing  for  an                                                               
effective  date." and  SENATE BILL  NO.  30 "An  Act relating  to                                                               
controlled  substances;   relating  to  marijuana;   relating  to                                                               
driving  motor   vehicles  when   there  is  an   open  marijuana                                                               
container; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that  HB 79 and SB 30 would  not move out of                                                               
committee today.                                                                                                                
1:11:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CYNTHIA  FRANKLIN,  Director,  Alcoholic Beverage  Control  Board                                                               
(ABC),   Department   of   Commerce,  Community,   and   Economic                                                               
Development,  discussed the  overlay  of  criminal statutes  with                                                               
regulating marijuana as a legal  substance.  Alaska Statute Title                                                               
4  spells  out  all  of  the  rules  around  alcohol  which,  she                                                               
explained, has  been deemed a dangerous  substance and therefore,                                                               
is  regulated.    Title  4   depicts  misdemeanors  and  felonies                                                               
relating to  alcohol where individuals  are prosecuted  for those                                                               
crimes  and  are  not  only   license  holders,  but  individuals                                                               
selling, furnishing, or  serving alcohol to minors.   She offered                                                               
that the  committees could engage  in a  philosophical discussion                                                               
as  to   whether  marijuana  will   be  a   regulated  substance,                                                               
controlled substance, or a scheme where  it is both.  She advised                                                               
that  the  feedback she  received  from  Major Dennis  Casanovas,                                                               
Alaska   State  Troopers,   Anchorage  Police   Department  (APD)                                                               
officers, and the officers she  met in Colorado and other states,                                                               
is that the  danger of creating a set of  rules in many different                                                               
places  is that  it  subjects  officers in  the  field to  making                                                               
determinations that are  not "bright lined."   She expressed that                                                               
the legislature  must create very  clear lines, as in  the "carve                                                               
out"  procedure  in Title  11,  that  marijuana is  a  controlled                                                               
substance,  an illegal  substance,  except  in certain  instances                                                               
wherein  the  state declares  it  to  be  legal.   She  described                                                               
scenarios where officers in the  field wonder whether they are in                                                               
Title 11, or Title 17.38, in the world of legalized marijuana.                                                                  
1:16:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. FRANKLIN continued that within  the interplay between Title 4                                                               
and Title  17.38 is  the question  of regulatory  board authority                                                               
and noted that Title 4  grants authority over all alcohol related                                                               
crimes.  She highlighted that  the ABC Board has five enforcement                                                               
officers statewide  who are authorized to  investigate and charge                                                               
individuals with  crimes related to  alcohol whether or  not they                                                               
are licensees.   She provided  that Title 17.38 does  not address                                                               
enforcement under  either the  ABC Board  or a  marijuana control                                                               
board and does not address the  scope of enforcement powers.  She                                                               
indicated that  the legislature should  make it clear  whether or                                                               
not  the board  charged with  regulating and  licensing marijuana                                                               
establishments has any  power or authority to  enforce on someone                                                               
selling marijuana  without a license,  or whether that  will fall                                                               
to more  general law enforcement  authority such as  the troopers                                                               
or local law enforcement.                                                                                                       
1:18:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX asked  whether the  ABC Board  is responsible  with                                                               
respect to people selling liquor without a license.                                                                             
MS.  FRANKLIN responded  in the  affirmative and  added that  the                                                               
statute is contained in Title  4.  Obviously, she reasoned, since                                                               
the ABC Board has only five  officers statewide it is not capable                                                               
of  enforcing on  every alcohol  related  crime.   The idea,  she                                                               
explained,   is  that   there  is   a  centralized   agency  with                                                               
enforcement authority  over this substance and  someone to assist                                                               
law  enforcement  in  determining  whether  the  alcohol  related                                                               
conduct is  legal and  authorized.  She  indicated that  is where                                                               
the overlay of marijuana under Title 11 becomes blurry.                                                                         
1:19:34 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised  that under current alcohol law,  it is not                                                               
just the  ABC Board  with authority but  also troopers  and local                                                               
MS.  FRANKLIN  answered  in  the   affirmative  and  stated  that                                                               
enforcement  officers  authorized  under Title  4  have  specific                                                               
statutory  authority.   She related  that prior  to enactment  on                                                               
February 24, 2015, within the  marijuana world the ABC Board does                                                               
not have  any legal  authority over marijuana.   She  opined that                                                               
when the  date arrives there  is nothing in AS  17.38 authorizing                                                               
ABC  Board  enforcement  regarding  a delivery  service  that  is                                                               
currently delivering  marijuana.   The question,  she emphasized,                                                               
is  whether there  will  be  authority with  a  board to  enforce                                                               
rules, to what extent, and how far the authority extends.                                                                       
1:21:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR MCGUIRE  noted there has  been considerable  debate whether                                                               
or  not this  bill  should contain  a  provision giving  distinct                                                               
authority to the  ABC Board or a hybrid  marijuana control board.                                                               
She asked  Ms. Franklin's  opinion as  to whether  that provision                                                               
should be  included in SB 30,  or relegated to a  second or third                                                               
piece of legislation.                                                                                                           
MS. FRANKLIN  answered that  it depends  upon the  authority that                                                               
will be given to the board  in terms of criminal enforcement.  In                                                               
the event the  board is given broader  criminal enforcement, such                                                               
as the  ABC Board has over  alcohol, it could be  included in the                                                               
criminal bill.  She opined that  on February 24, 2015, the agency                                                               
will  pursue  an  emergency regulation  to  define  "public"  for                                                               
enforcement  officers in  terms of  citing individuals  consuming                                                               
marijuana  in public.    She advised  that  Anchorage passed  its                                                               
ordinance last  night, which  is a mirror  image of  AS 17.38.040                                                               
that  outlaws consuming  marijuana  in public.    The agency  has                                                               
worked with the  Court System to ascertain  that everything would                                                               
be in  place on the date  of enactment, and that  a definition of                                                               
the term  "public" would  be forthcoming.   With regard  to which                                                               
bill it  is in, she  deferred to  the legislators.   She remarked                                                               
that if  the board will  have broad enforcement authority  to put                                                               
it [in  the bill]  early, but  if [the  board doesn't  have broad                                                               
enforcement authority] it will not make much difference.                                                                        
1:26:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  MILLETT   recounted  that   two  years   ago  the                                                               
Alcoholic Beverage  Control Board  was moved from  the Department                                                               
of Public Safety (DPS) to  the Department of Commerce, Community,                                                               
and  Economic Development  (DCCED).   She questioned  under which                                                               
department the new board should be placed.                                                                                      
MS. FRANKLIN  responded that the ballot  measure stipulates DCCED                                                               
so the  question is whether or  not it is a  serious enough issue                                                               
to go against the voters.   She opined that both boards should be                                                               
in  the  same  department  because   to  put  each  substance  in                                                               
different departments  could potentially  lead to  the substances                                                               
being approached in  a fundamentally different manner.   She said                                                               
that  the  debate   over  the  ABC  Board's   location  has  been                                                               
concluded,  but  the debate  over  what  type of  department  the                                                               
regulation of a  dangerous substance belongs puts a  light on the                                                               
difficult  balancing act  of both  of the  substances due  to the                                                               
commercial, public safety and public  health concerns.  She noted                                                               
that  Colorado has  shown a  societal cost  to the  substance and                                                               
those costs must be covered in some manner.                                                                                     
1:29:31 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN surmised  that  the  legislature needs  to                                                               
take statutory  steps to provide  specific authority for  the ABC                                                               
Board  or   a  marijuana  control  board   to  exert  enforcement                                                               
authority  over  marijuana  because  it   was  not  done  in  the                                                               
MS. FRANKLIN agreed that the  initiative did create the ABC Board                                                               
as the regulatory authority but  did not address enforcement.  It                                                               
spoke about civil penalties for  violating rules around licensing                                                               
and  small penalties  for consuming  in public.   She  reiterated                                                               
that  the initiative  did not  speak to  the penalty  for selling                                                               
marijuana  without  a  license   once  licenses  are  issued,  or                                                               
enforcement authority  in terms of  what agency, whether it  is a                                                               
general law  enforcement authority, or whether  there is specific                                                               
authority  with  a  regulatory agency  to  enforce  against  non-                                                               
licensees.    The  initiative  depicted  creating  penalties  for                                                               
licensees who  violate the  rules, but  not for  people operating                                                               
completely outside of the licensing  authority.  She described an                                                               
operation  that  operates  in  a  semi-commercial  manner  as  it                                                               
appears on the  surface to be a legitimate business,  yet are not                                                               
waiting to get  licenses or to follow the rules.   She reiterated                                                               
that the  legislature needs  to make "clear  bright lines"  as to                                                               
the rules.                                                                                                                      
1:32:13 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI  pointed out  that the initiative  read that                                                               
marijuana  cannot  be  used  in  a  public  place  and  requested                                                               
guidance  on how  "public"  place  is defined  in  Colorado.   He                                                               
referred to  [Matanuska-Susitna Borough Resolution Serial  No 15-                                                               
006]  which questioned  if a  passenger vehicle  is considered  a                                                               
public  place,  a  private  baseball   field,  smoking  club,  or                                                               
standing on the edge of an individual's private property.                                                                       
MS. FRANKLIN responded  that a definition is  needed for "public"                                                               
as in AS 17.38.040.  She  advised that the ABC Board's definition                                                               
is in AS 11.81.900[52] which read:                                                                                              
     (52) "public place"  means a place to  which the public                                                                    
     or  a  substantial  group of  persons  has  access  and                                                                    
     includes highways,  transportation facilities, schools,                                                                    
     places  of amusement  or business,  parks, playgrounds,                                                                    
     prisons, and  hallways, lobbies, and other  portions of                                                                    
     apartment houses  and hotels not constituting  rooms or                                                                    
     apartments designed for actual residence.                                                                                  
MS. FRANKLIN  advised that this  definition is used  for purposes                                                               
of criminal statutes,  and drinking in public.   The statute does                                                               
include some  parks so  it may  or may  not include  the baseball                                                               
field, but it  does not include vehicles.  She  explained that an                                                               
officer  can  refer  to  a  definition that  is  in  place.    AS                                                               
17.38.040(52)   is  a   similar  definition   to  the   Anchorage                                                               
definition  in  its  ordinance,   and  similar  to  the  Colorado                                                               
definition.  She described it  as a fairly standard definition in                                                               
terms of defining spaces where  an individual's activities affect                                                               
others and  noted it  is the best  definition moving  forward for                                                               
the term "public" as in AS 17.38.040.                                                                                           
1:32:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   WIELECHOWSKI   questioned  whether   publically   owned                                                               
facilities such as the Alaska  Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)                                                               
that is rented out or leased out [would be considered public].                                                                  
MS. FRANKLIN  addressed a section  in the initiative  that allows                                                               
private  business   and  property  owners  to   specifically  ban                                                               
marijuana.  She advised that  the publically owned issue has come                                                               
up before  in terms of where  an area is publically  owned but is                                                               
leased out  to individuals, such  as in assisted  living facility                                                               
or  receives  state funding,  would  that  apply.   Ms.  Franklin                                                               
referred to AS 17.38.120(d), which read:                                                                                        
     (d) Nothing  in this  chapter shall prohibit  a person,                                                                    
     employer,   school,  hospital,   recreation  or   youth                                                                    
     center, correction  facility, corporation or  any other                                                                    
     entity who occupies, owns  or controls private property                                                                    
     from   prohibiting   or    otherwise   regulating   the                                                                    
     possession,   consumption,   use,  display,   transfer,                                                                    
     distribution,  sale,  transportation,   or  growing  of                                                                    
     marijuana on or in that property.                                                                                          
MS.  FRANKLIN  stated  that   generally  speaking  a  corrections                                                               
facility would  not be  owned by  a private  entity and  it would                                                               
seem  that  these  issues  will  be  tested  in  court  by  those                                                               
facilities banning the substance.                                                                                               
1:36:13 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COSTELLO  requested specifically  who Ms.  Franklin spoke                                                               
with in  Colorado, how  they addressed  edibles, and  whether the                                                               
non-chemical solvent language in the  bill bans all edibles [page                                                               
4, lines  21-26].  She  questioned what lessons Alaska  can learn                                                               
from Colorado in how it approaches this issue and edibles.                                                                      
MS.  FRANKLIN  responded that  the  main  "boots on  the  ground"                                                               
regulators in  Colorado were  Andrew Friedman,  Colorado Director                                                               
of Marijuana  Coordination, and  Ron Kammerzell,  Senior Director                                                               
of Enforcement  for the Colorado  Department of Revenue,  and the                                                               
marijuana  enforcement division  employees who  enforce marijuana                                                               
rules,  and several  members of  the Colorado  attorney general's                                                               
office  working  on  marijuana.    She  explained  that  many  of                                                               
Colorado's  edible  issues  came  about because  it  already  had                                                               
licenses  issued  for  medical marijuana  dispensaries  in  place                                                               
which  were selling  very potent  edibles, high  THC content  for                                                               
medical  marijuana patients  with  a high  tolerance  level.   In                                                               
2014, she advised, the Colorado  recreational market began and it                                                               
found that very  strong edibles were out among  consumers who did                                                               
not know  about potency,  were having  uncomfortable experiences,                                                               
and going to the hospital.   Consequently, she remarked, Colorado                                                               
changed  the  rules  and  created   serving  sizes,  child  proof                                                               
packaging  rules,  and  a  new   set  of  rules  to  address  the                                                               
recreational  edible  market  explaining the  delayed  effect  of                                                               
edibles.   There is now a  total limit on the  number of servings                                                               
in  any given  package  and  when a  package  has  more than  one                                                               
serving  it  must be  resealable  to  child proof,  she  offered.                                                               
Colorado also  created a public education  campaign starting with                                                               
five  milligrams  of   THC  per  serving  as  an   edible.    She                                                               
highlighted that the result of  the public education campaign was                                                               
that emergency  rooms and the  Colorado enforcement system  saw a                                                               
dramatic  decrease.     She  related   that  Alaska   can  easily                                                               
incorporate Colorado's rules  and possibly scale back  a bit more                                                               
as Alaska does  not have a medical marijuana  dispensary in place                                                               
and it  can determine the  size of a  serving on the  lower range                                                               
without upsetting  medical marijuana licensees.   In that regard,                                                               
Alaska has  the opportunity to cap  out the total THC  content of                                                               
an individual  edible product  in that  should an  individual eat                                                               
the  whole  thing  they  would  not  experience  overdosing,  she                                                               
1:42:55 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR MCGUIRE requested Ms. Franklin  to prepare a packet for the                                                               
House  and   Senate  Judiciary  Standing   Committees  containing                                                               
recommendations,  including the  definition of  edibles that  was                                                               
provided  to   the  Senate  State  Affairs   Standing  Committee.                                                               
Together  with the  packet  to  include, a  binder  of items  Ms.                                                               
Franklin collected in her journeys,  written information, and all                                                               
backup  documents.    Chair  McGuire   also  requested  a  letter                                                               
regarding  draft [bill]  improvements as  to whether  or not  the                                                               
issue  of   licensing  boards  should   be  acted  upon   by  the                                                               
legislature, and  if so, what  its authority should be,  what Ms.                                                               
Franklin would  like to  see by  virtue of a  board, and  what is                                                               
needed when  reviewing Title 4  with respect to  criminal powers,                                                               
investigatory  powers, resources,  et cetera.   Ms.  Franklin was                                                               
directed  to  "not  leave  a  stone  unturned."    Chair  McGuire                                                               
questioned the work  load of the ABC Board given  all it has with                                                               
Title 4  licenses, whether the  ABC Board  is ready to  take this                                                               
on, and what Ms. Franklin envisions  the board to look like as it                                                               
is  a brand  new area  of commercialization.   She  expressed the                                                               
concern that people are not  criminalized when they shouldn't be,                                                               
and that the  public is not harmed by the  commercialization of a                                                               
substance that isn't managed properly.                                                                                          
1:48:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.   FRANKLIN  advised   she  would   provide  the   information                                                               
requested.   She further advised  that since 1980, the  ABC Board                                                               
has   had  five   volunteer  members,   currently  two   industry                                                               
representatives and  three public  representatives - one  of whom                                                               
must be  from a rural  community.   She articulated that  the ABC                                                               
Board, Alaska Mental Health Trust,  and Rasmussen Foundation have                                                               
worked for  two and one-half  years on updates  to Title 4.   She                                                               
related  that there  is  the  manner in  which  alcohol has  been                                                               
regulated,  and the  manner the  broad stakeholders  group, which                                                               
includes CHAR and  many members at all levels and  aspects of the                                                               
liquor  industry, contemplate  that liquor  should be  regulated.                                                               
The  board,  as  envisioned  by  the Title  4  revision  and  the                                                               
stakeholders' committee,  is to remain  a five member  board that                                                               
includes one public health and  one public safety designation - a                                                               
rural public member.  She opined that  it is an ideal setup for a                                                               
marijuana  board with  the  same makeup  but  with two  marijuana                                                               
industry representatives.   She  expressed that  if it  was under                                                               
the ABC Board  and two marijuana representatives  were added, the                                                               
public  health and  public safety  designation would  have to  be                                                               
increased  as   there  would   be  a   total  of   four  industry                                                               
representatives  on a  seven  member  board.   There  would be  a                                                               
public safety  concern if the  industries had a majority  vote on                                                               
the  board, she  commented.   In essence,  she remarked,  the ABC                                                               
Board would be a  nine member board and once it  is a nine member                                                               
board,  it  might  as  well  be  two  five-member  boards.    She                                                               
described  the  agency  as  "very busy"  with  over  1800  liquor                                                               
licenses,  10 employees  statewide and  half are  licensing, half                                                               
are  commissioned  police  enforcement officers.    The  agency's                                                               
budget is $1.75 million per year,  but it does bring in licensing                                                               
receipts of  which most  goes back  to the  cities with  the idea                                                               
that  the cities  will use  it to  help with  law enforcement  of                                                               
alcohol issues.                                                                                                                 
1:52:12 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. FRANKLIN continued that the  initiative read that half of the                                                               
licensing fees would go back  to a municipalities if its business                                                               
is located  in a municipality.   She described  many similarities                                                               
in the way AS 17.38 is written as  to the way Title 4 works.  She                                                               
emphasized  that it  is  a volunteer  board so  the  bulk of  the                                                               
alcohol work is  performed by employees of the agency,  and if it                                                               
is left with  this agency it must be expanded.   She offered that                                                               
it could  be expanded  in a fiscally  responsible manner  that is                                                               
less  than  creating  an  entire   new  10-member  agency.    She                                                               
commented that  there are no  marijuana regulators waiting  to be                                                               
placed on a  board as this is a new  substance to regulate versus                                                               
criminal enforcement.   She maintains  that the  agency employees                                                               
are experts  and have  the most  experience in  issuing licenses,                                                               
enforcement,  and  licensees  having   issues  who  do  not  have                                                               
criminal  intent but  need a  special kind  of enforcement.   She                                                               
described the  ideal setup as  two volunteer boards,  both served                                                               
by this  agency.   She noted that  the attorney  general's office                                                               
reviewed concerns regarding conflict  and determined there is not                                                               
a legal conflict in an agency serving both boards.                                                                              
1:55:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  surmised   that  Ms.  Franklin  preferred                                                               
staffing performed within the agency  even though it would result                                                               
in  the hiring  of additional  people to  regulate two  different                                                               
substances.  He  further surmised that within the  agency a board                                                               
should  be  created for  marijuana  that  maintains the  existing                                                               
board  structure and  population as  the board  for alcohol.   He                                                               
questioned   whether  the   official  position   of  the   Walker                                                               
administration is  urging the  legislature to  do exactly  as Ms.                                                               
Franklin described.                                                                                                             
MS. FRANKLIN  answered in  the affirmative in  that she  met with                                                               
Governor Walker  in December and  outlined three  options: option                                                               
A, it all stays with the  ABC Board; option B, the hybrid version                                                               
she  previously  described;  and  option  C, it  all  goes  to  a                                                               
marijuana control board  and a separate agency.   She stated that                                                               
Governor Walker did endorse the hybrid plan.                                                                                    
1:57:20 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  expressed his concern that  there could                                                               
be  both  legal and  illegal  interests  that  would like  to  be                                                               
involved [in the marijuana industry],  from the pharmaceutical to                                                               
the "mob."   He remarked there are lawyers  who could potentially                                                               
be involved advising  both boards with conflicts  of interest and                                                               
board members  and staff with  many ethical questions.   He noted                                                               
that Alaska  has a series of  rules for the executive  branch and                                                               
legislative branch  that are not  totally the same in  this area.                                                               
He said  he was not  sure whether that  will "fit the  bill here"                                                               
and questioned  what efforts  the agency  was making,  or efforts                                                               
the  agency suggested  the legislature  make to  carefully obtain                                                               
expertise in the area of ethics.                                                                                                
MS.  FRANKLIN  responded  that   an  assistant  attorney  general                                                               
referred her to the Alaska  Executive Branch Ethics Act, and also                                                               
cited AS 39.52.010(b), which read:                                                                                              
     (b) The legislature  declares that it is  the policy of                                                                    
     the  state,  when a  public  employee  is appointed  to                                                                    
     serve on a  state board or commission  that the holding                                                                    
     of  such offices  does not  constitute  the holding  of                                                                    
     incompatible  offices  unless expressly  prohibited  by                                                                    
     the Alaska Constitution, this  chapter and any opinions                                                                    
     or decisions rendered under it, or another statute.                                                                        
MS.  FRANKLIN  explained  that holding  incompatible  offices  is                                                               
prohibited.    She highlighted  that  establishing  that kind  of                                                               
conflict is highly  fact sensitive and the inquiry  in that would                                                               
be a  conflict of  interest between  an individual  board member,                                                               
and not  the entire board.   She continued  that it is  not clear                                                               
whether  the  alcohol  and  marijuana  industries  are  competing                                                               
industries.  The Washington State  Liquor Control Board regulates                                                               
both industries  and she is not  aware of a challenge  to that as                                                               
being a conflict  of interest.  She advised  that when Washington                                                               
passed its  initiative that control  was put with  the Washington                                                               
State Liquor Control Board and  it did not create the possibility                                                               
of a separate  board.  The Washington State  Liquor Control Board                                                               
consists of  three members who  are state employees and  it holds                                                               
three board meetings per week.   She advised the Alaska ABC Board                                                               
holds  five  meetings per  year  and  has substantial  individual                                                               
business decisions to make at  the meetings.  She reiterated that                                                               
she  is  not aware  whether  it  is  an  accepted fact  that  the                                                               
industries  are competing  or conflicting,  and she  imagined two                                                               
separate  boards  as a  way  to  minimize  the possibility  of  a                                                               
conflict  of  interest.    The attorney  working  on  this  issue                                                               
advised that  she does not  believe anything in Alaska  state law                                                               
would suggest  there is a  conflict of interest in  an individual                                                               
agency licensing two types of industries.                                                                                       
2:01:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG stated  it is  not just  a question  of                                                               
conflict of interest, but the  issue of "ethics" generally due to                                                               
such  things as  the necessity  for background  checks, necessity                                                               
for  full  disclosure  of  the  people  involved,  training,  and                                                               
liability.   He opined there  will be significant  ethical issues                                                               
and he would like to know if there are national experts on these                                                                
2:03:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE provided that the goal is to meet the intent of                                                                
the voters in implementation of the initiative, AS 17.38.110,                                                                   
which read:                                                                                                                     
     (a) A  local government  may prohibit the  operation of                                                                    
     marijuana  cultivation  facilities,  marijuana  product                                                                    
     manufacturing     facilities,     marijuana     testing                                                                    
     facilities,  or  retail  marijuana stores  through  the                                                                    
     enactment of an ordinance or by a voter initiative.                                                                        
     (b)  A   local  government  may  enact   ordinances  or                                                                    
     regulations not  in conflict with this  chapter or with                                                                    
     regulations   enacted   pursuant   to   this   chapter,                                                                    
     governing  the  time,  place,   manner  and  number  of                                                                    
     marijuana establishment operations.  A local government                                                                    
     may  establish  civil  penalties for  violation  of  an                                                                    
     ordinance or regulation governing  the time, place, and                                                                    
     manner of  a marijuana  establishment that  may operate                                                                    
     in such local government.                                                                                                  
     (c)   A  local   government  may   designate  a   local                                                                    
     regulatory   authority   that    is   responsible   for                                                                    
     processing  applications submitted  for a  registration                                                                    
     to  operate   a  marijuana  establishment   within  the                                                                    
     boundaries   of  the   local   government.  The   local                                                                    
     government  may  provide   that  the  local  regulatory                                                                    
     authority  may  issue  such  registrations  should  the                                                                    
     issuance  by  the  local  government  become  necessary                                                                    
     because of a failure by  the board to adopt regulations                                                                    
     pursuant  to  AS  17.38.090 or  to  accept  or  process                                                                    
     applications in accordance with AS 17.38.100.                                                                              
     (d)  A local  government may  establish procedures  for                                                                    
     the   issuance,  suspension,   and   revocation  of   a                                                                    
     registration   issued  by   the  local   government  in                                                                    
     accordance  with (f)  of this  section or  (g) of  this                                                                    
     section.  These  procedures  shall be  subject  to  all                                                                    
     requirements of AS  44.62, the Administrative Procedure                                                                    
     (e)  A local  government  may establish  a schedule  of                                                                    
     annual  operating, registration,  and application  fees                                                                    
     for    marijuana    establishments,    provided,    the                                                                    
     application fee shall only be  due if an application is                                                                    
     submitted to a local  government in accordance with (f)                                                                    
     of this  section and a  registration fee shall  only be                                                                    
     due if a  registration is issued by  a local government                                                                    
     in accordance with  (f) of this section or  (g) of this                                                                    
     section ...                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE questioned  if  there was  concern regarding  a                                                               
litigation challenge when  it comes to Native  Sovereignty on the                                                               
local control issue  regarding a dry village.   Many villages are                                                               
outside an organized  municipality but still retain  the right to                                                               
be dry.  He further questioned  if there could be a challenge and                                                               
whether it  is something the  legislature should  consider during                                                               
MS. FRANKLIN  noted that she  has responded to  local governments                                                               
that "want  to be on  the substance  in our local  community" and                                                               
the answer is that AS  17.38.110 permits that except that nothing                                                               
in that  act can change  Ravin v. State  of Alaska, 537  P.2d 494                                                             
(Alaska 1975).  Ms. Franklin  advises local governments, in terms                                                               
of alcohol  local option  law, that  the best  [local government]                                                               
can do  in a local  community, given  Ravin v. Alaska,  is called                                                             
Local  Option  4  for  municipalities, and  Local  Option  3  for                                                               
villages  which  is  banning  everything  but  possession.    She                                                               
related  that  it  has  proven  to be  problematic  in  terms  of                                                               
enforcement in  those communities.   She  described approximately                                                               
38 communities  on the books under  Local Option 4 at  this time.                                                               
The  agency has  heard over  the years  and in  the stakeholders'                                                               
process that  the option does not  work well for them  because it                                                               
permits a loophole  for alcohol to be in that  community in terms                                                               
of possession being legal but  everything else being illegal, she                                                               
said.  She  opined that describes the status of  marijuana in the                                                               
State of Alaska  since Ravin, and to what some  people call magic                                                             
marijuana where  it is legal  to have it  but not legal  to sell,                                                               
transport, manufacture,  or purchase  it.  She  said the  way she                                                               
sees a challenge coming up to that  is if there were a village or                                                               
municipality  that attempted  to  outlaw  it in  some  sort of  a                                                               
lawsuit to  test the Ravin decision.   She extended that  she did                                                             
not know  that any  municipal attorney would  allow a  village to                                                               
try to do that since the initiative  says "you can be in it," but                                                               
also says nothing  in the act is intended to  change any of those                                                               
privileges granted through the Supreme  Court under Ravin and Noy                                                           
v.  State of  Alaska,  83  P.3d 538,  542-43  (Alaska App.  2003)                                                             
cases.   She  said the  most likely  scenario is  when the  rules                                                               
around the local  options are written, whether by  the ABC Board,                                                               
a marijuana control  board, or the legislature, that  none of the                                                               
local options  would be  able to  prohibit possession  allowed by                                                               
the Ravin opinion.                                                                                                            
2:09:40 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX questioned  if anyone  has  challenged the  village                                                               
local dry rule "kind of on a Ravin analysis."                                                                                 
MS. FRANKLIN  responded "yes," but did  not know the name  of the                                                               
case, but that  it challenged under the same  privacy rights, the                                                               
ability to  prohibit a  person from possessing  alcohol.   At the                                                               
time that Supreme Court case  was decided, the Supreme Court said                                                               
alcohol is a very dangerous substance,  of course "they can be in                                                               
it," she recalled.                                                                                                              
2:11:13 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX  asked how  the one  ounce proviso  synthesizes with                                                               
the sale by a  licensee of edibles.  She offered  a scenario of a                                                               
dinner party and asked whether  the marijuana must be thrown away                                                               
at the end of the dinner party if it all has not been eaten.                                                                    
MS.  FRANKLIN answered  that  her  understanding, after  speaking                                                               
with  processers  and manufacturers  in  Colorado  is that  if  a                                                               
concentrate  is removed  from the  definition  of marijuana  then                                                               
essentially  edibles  are  removed.   She  described  edibles  as                                                               
processed   and   manufactured  using   marijuana   concentrates.                                                               
Tourists in Colorado  can purchase up to 1/4 ounce  of flowers or                                                               
bud, and a resident can purchase 1 ounce at a time, she opined.                                                                 
2:14:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that  another issue Alaska will                                                               
be dealing with is tort liability in the owner and the supplier.                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX directed  that would need to  be accomplished either                                                               
through legislation or the common law.                                                                                          
2:15:42 PM                                                                                                                    
KAREN  O'KEEFE, Director,  State  Policies Department,  Marijuana                                                               
Policy Project  (MPP), advised that the  Marijuana Policy Project                                                               
(MMP)  is   a  national  non-profit  organization   working  with                                                               
advocates  and legislatures  to reform  marijuana policies.   She                                                               
stated   that  the   measure   received   MPPs  assistance   with                                                               
campaigning, it  provided funding, and also  drafting assistance.                                                               
[On January  28, 2015], Dr.  Tim Hinterberger  submitted concerns                                                               
[located in committee packets] regarding  the current draft of SB
30 and HB  79, and the previously discussed  issue of affirmative                                                               
defense, and a few other concerns, she pointed out.                                                                             
2:16:59 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from  2:16 p.m. to 2:29 p.m. due to                                                               
technical difficulties.                                                                                                         
2:29:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. O'KEEFE  conveyed her understanding  that the  committees are                                                               
reviewing the  issue of defense and  replacing the "comprehensive                                                               
legal  protection" of  Measure  2.   She  recommends keeping  the                                                               
language from Ballot Measure 2,  AS 17.38.020 and AS 17.38.070 as                                                               
they are  comprehensive legal protections  for adults who  are 21                                                               
and older,  and for  stores and  their employees  legally selling                                                               
marijuana.   The  [protections]  include not  only defenses  from                                                               
criminal  prosecution,  but  the conduct  is  exclusively  lawful                                                               
under state  law and municipal law.   In addition to  that issue,                                                               
she remarked, in the defense itself  there is confusion as to the                                                               
scope of  what possession is  allowed.  The initiative  allows an                                                               
adult to  possess six  plants and all  of the  marijuana produced                                                               
from those  plants.  Another  issue, she described,  is "display"                                                               
as the draft  of SB 30 penalizes not only  public consumption but                                                               
also public  display of  marijuana.  She  stated that  display is                                                               
one of the words included in Measure  2 as to what adults will be                                                               
allowed to  do.  It  explicitly reads that public  consumption is                                                               
prohibited, but display  is not.  Therefore,  she surmised "that"                                                               
word should be  stricken from AS 11.17.065.  The  next concern is                                                               
that a  certain means  of producing  extract would  be prohibited                                                               
which  would be  fine, she  said,  as long  as manufacturers  are                                                               
licensed, and complying with strict  regulations, and are able to                                                               
safely  manufacture these  kind  of extracts.    For adults,  she                                                               
noted,  there is  no objection  to banning  potentially dangerous                                                               
methods of  home extraction that  might cause an explosion.   She                                                               
requested  that  in  addition to  vegetable  glycerin,  water  be                                                               
exempted  as water  is a  solvent and  adults can  safely extract                                                               
resins  from marijuana  using cold  water  with no  chance of  an                                                               
explosion.  She commented that  this allows adults to make edible                                                               
products in a safe manner in their home.                                                                                        
2:32:29 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. O'KEEFE  described the next  issue within  Dr. Hinterberger's                                                               
letter  as "hermanizing"  hashish and  marijuana.   Currently, SB
30, AS  11.71.190(1)(b) reads "marijuana,  hashish, hash  oil, or                                                               
hashish  oil  are  schedule  VIA  controlled  substances."    She                                                               
indicated that  the language  suggests hashish  and hash  oil are                                                               
separate  from  marijuana;  however, Measure  2's  definition  of                                                               
marijuana includes  concentrates and resins and  thereby includes                                                               
hash.   She suggested striking  the word "hash" everywhere  as it                                                               
is  included  in  marijuana,  or   "alternately,  it  could  read                                                               
marijuana  including  hashish,  hash  oil   and  so  forth  is  a                                                               
controlled substance."  She pointed  out that this language would                                                               
make it clear  that they are not meant to  be separate because it                                                               
is part  of the definition of  marijuana.  The last  concern, she                                                               
remarked,  is the  issue  of  open containers.    Senate Bill  30                                                               
proposes  penalizing individuals  with marijuana  in a  container                                                               
that  had been  opened, or  paraphernalia if  it appears  to have                                                               
been used in a vehicle.   She said that for many people marijuana                                                               
is a medicine  and SB 30 allows many locations  to ban [products]                                                               
with marijuana.   For example,  a seriously ill patient  may live                                                               
at  a nursing  home  that does  not allow  marijuana  use at  its                                                               
facility,  should the  provision pass  they could  not go  into a                                                               
parked car  and use  marijuana when  no driver  is present.   She                                                               
opined it  is an unnecessary prohibition  and unnecessarily broad                                                               
and it  should be  revised or removed  completely.   In addition,                                                               
she  provided,  there  are  two   exceptions  under  the  alcohol                                                               
statute, use  in a bus or  limousine, and she urged  [that SB 30]                                                               
be revised to match the alcohol  statute.  Ms. O'Keefe noted that                                                               
marijuana  does  not have  to  be  smoked  so  all of  the  broad                                                               
prohibitions regarding  open container would apply,  and not only                                                               
for adult recreational users but also to patients.                                                                              
2:35:30 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL  put forward that  the legislature  has struggled                                                               
with testing for  impaired driving as public safely  has been one                                                               
of the harder issue to get  to and he advised that open container                                                               
was  an attempt  to go  down that  road.   He questioned  how she                                                               
viewed that issue.                                                                                                              
MS. O'KEEFE  agreed with the  importance that it  remain unlawful                                                               
for adults  to drive  while under the  influence of  marijuana or                                                               
any  other  substance.    She suggested  more  training  for  law                                                               
enforcement  officers for  drug recognition  experts in  order to                                                               
recognize signs of  being impaired by marijuana.    She urged the                                                               
committee to not be overly  broad as to encompass benign activity                                                               
and especially people who are seriously ill.                                                                                    
2:36:45 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL  remarked that the legislature  is sympathetic to                                                               
the use of  medicinal marijuana, and that edibles  will be harder                                                               
to detect  than the smell of  marijuana smoke.  He  asked whether                                                               
there is any manner edible  consumption could be detected without                                                               
a sobriety walking test.                                                                                                        
MS. O'KEEFE reiterated that training  law enforcement is the best                                                               
way of  [detecting impairment].   She  stated that  an individual                                                               
consuming an edible can be under  the influence for many hours so                                                               
the  chances  of  a  law  enforcement  officer  finding  an  open                                                               
container indicating they  consumed an edible product  in the car                                                               
isn't the most effective manner.   She indicated that many people                                                               
highly impaired by marijuana are  not associated with risk taking                                                               
so  hopeful most  would not  be inclined  to drive  in the  first                                                               
place.  She opined there is  a widening amount of training in law                                                               
enforcement  in order  to recognize  when a  person is  under the                                                               
influence  of  anything, and  they  have  specific protocols  for                                                               
testing.    She offered  that  Paul  Armentano [Deputy  Director,                                                               
National Organization  for the  Reform of  Marijuana Laws]  is an                                                               
expert  on the  driving  issue  and he  would  be an  appropriate                                                               
person to expand on this law.                                                                                                   
SENATOR COGHILL  requested she forward the  recommendation to the                                                               
committee chairs  with a  note as the  legislature needs  to look                                                               
down that road.                                                                                                                 
2:38:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  WIELECHOWSKI  questioned if  there  is  a level  of  THC                                                               
everyone can agree under which a person is intoxicated.                                                                         
MS. O'KEEFE advised that, unfortunately,  there is not a specific                                                               
level  of THC,  as even  the federal  government's transportation                                                               
board  has said  there  is  no magic  number.   However,  regular                                                               
marijuana users  can have  a very  high level of  THC and  not be                                                               
impaired.  "You have to rely  on the field roadside sobriety type                                                               
tests," she said.                                                                                                               
2:40:07 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  offered  that  his  question  relates  to  the                                                               
chemistry  of  hash oil  extraction  and  questioned whether  any                                                               
state legislature  has defined  the specific  process by  what is                                                               
not allowed,  rather than getting  specific on the process.   For                                                               
example,  he  offered,   only  non-hydrocarbon  based  extraction                                                               
methods are permitted.                                                                                                          
MS. O'KEEFE advised that the  exception for vegetable glycerin is                                                               
similar  to  the  language  used in  Oregon's  measure  that  was                                                               
approved  by  voters.   She  stated  she  would "ask  around"  to                                                               
determine if  other states  list the  methods of  extraction that                                                               
are exempted from the prohibition at one's home.                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  further questioned whether  the risk is  due to                                                               
hydrocarbons used in extractions.                                                                                               
MS. O'KEEFE deferred Senator Micciche's  question to the experts,                                                               
including  Bruce  Schulte  [Coalition  for  Responsible  Cannabis                                                               
Legislation].   She related  her understanding  that the  risk is                                                               
related  to  fumes  produced.   For  example,  she  pointed  out,                                                               
anything producing  fumes is dangerous  as with an  alcohol based                                                               
butane solvent,  but there will be  no fumes when the  cold water                                                               
process or vegetable glycerin process is used.                                                                                  
2:42:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  questioned   if   there  were   other                                                               
countries  or   jurisdictions  allowing   a  certain   amount  of                                                               
marijuana use and,  he surmised, the legislature  can either look                                                               
at  subject  matters  to  begin  with  or  jurisdictions.    When                                                               
reviewing jurisdictions  it can be  determined how the  issue was                                                               
framed and address them.                                                                                                        
MS. O'KEEFE responded  that the only country  that has completely                                                               
made adult marijuana  use and production legal  is Uruguay, South                                                               
America  and,  unfortunately,   she  noted,  it  is   as  new  as                                                               
Washington and Colorado's law.  The  system is not up and running                                                               
and  there appears  to  be concern  as  to how  it  done and  how                                                               
realistic  it is.   The  Netherlands,  since the  1970s, has  had                                                               
marijuana stores  which are  de facto legal  as it  is prohibited                                                               
within  the  law,  and  the  production  of  marijuana  is  still                                                               
illegal.   She described this  system as imperfect but  there are                                                               
lessons to be learned in how they approach things.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   requested  that  the   committees  be                                                               
informed on other  jurisdictions and their progress  in this area                                                               
because  whether it  is civil  or common  law jurisdiction,  if a                                                               
common problem  is being  addressed it would  be helpful  to have                                                               
the information.                                                                                                                
2:45:48 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned Bruce Schulte  as to the challenge of                                                               
the  extraction process  of hash  oil and  pondered if  a broader                                                               
definition might be more helpful  eliminating the risk of harmful                                                               
or risky  extraction methods.  He  surmised that all of  the more                                                               
dangerous  processes are  hydrocarbon based  and the  legislature                                                               
does not  know what future  processes will  look like.   He asked                                                               
whether the legislature should limit  it to defining it or should                                                               
hydrocarbon based extraction methods be eliminated.                                                                             
2:46:43 PM                                                                                                                    
BRUCE  SCHULTE,  Spokesman,  Coalition for  Responsible  Cannabis                                                               
Legislation,  advised he  is a  spokesman for  the Coalition  for                                                               
Responsible Cannabis  Legislation and that he  submitted a packet                                                               
of material  to the committees  in which the  coalition attempted                                                               
to clarify the  products and processes related to  marijuana.  He                                                               
said the materials include home  extraction using butane and that                                                               
butane hash oil was one of  them.  He described the problem being                                                               
that hash  oil is not volatile,  but the process using  butane is                                                               
volatile, as is  acetylene, helium and other gases.   He surmised                                                               
that  once the  regulated  industry  is set  up  the practice  of                                                               
producing hash oil  at home using butane  will largely disappear.                                                               
He  opined  this  would happen  when  commercial  businesses  are                                                               
allowed  to produce  hash oil  and other  extracts in  a suitable                                                               
environment  using close  loop  systems,  trained personnel,  and                                                               
explosion proof lighting.   He pointed to backyard  stills at the                                                               
end of alcohol prohibition in that  after a period of time it was                                                               
not  practical because  a  cheaper and  better  product could  be                                                               
purchased in  a store.   He  related that this  is not  a perfect                                                               
answer  to this  concern  but  he hoped  that  the practice  will                                                               
SENATOR MICCICHE  advised that his  question was not  answered in                                                               
that he is  looking to eliminate that extraction  process, but he                                                               
does support another process that would be safer.                                                                               
MR.  SCHULTE   questioned  if  Senator  Micciche   was  referring                                                               
specifically to home use or commercial production.                                                                              
SENATOR   MICCICHE  offered   that  if   the  hydrocarbon   based                                                               
extraction  process is  unnecessarily risky  and there  are other                                                               
processes, he would favor them.                                                                                                 
MR.  SCHULTE  expanded that  in  a  commercial environment  there                                                               
would be little  reason for a business to extract  hash oil using                                                               
butane as  it is not cost  effective, not safe or  efficient, and                                                               
is not  in any manner  a preferred  method.  He  described closed                                                               
loop  systems  where  the gases  are  highly  self-contained  and                                                               
recaptured for reuse, and some do not include butane at all.                                                                    
2:49:55 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SCHULTE reiterated  concern  regarding the  effort to  treat                                                               
hash, hash  oil, and edibles,  separately [from marijuana].   The                                                               
coalition believes  the problem in  this area is that  terms were                                                               
misleading  or   unfamiliar.    He   commented  that   his  board                                                               
previously  submitted a  document, "Marijuana  Products Extracts,                                                               
Derivatives  and Regulations"  in which  the plant  is described,                                                               
its component  parts, the manner  in which parts of  the cannabis                                                               
plant  are  used  and processed,  and  defines  concentrates  and                                                               
2:52:43 PM                                                                                                                    
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public  Defender Agency, Department of                                                               
Administration,  in   responding  to   Representative  Gruenberg,                                                               
stated  that he  had not  heard  anything that  would change  the                                                               
testimony  offered by  Tracey Wollenberg,  yesterday.   He  noted                                                               
that  the  agency's  major  concern is  being  addressed  by  the                                                               
rewrite which  he would like to  review in order to  get into the                                                               
more technical  problems that  might arise.   The  agency's major                                                               
concern  is the  manner in  which defense  was structured  in not                                                               
being  consistent  with  the  initiative   or  the  Alaska  State                                                               
Constitution, he said.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted there  will be other  issues such                                                               
as  warranties,  food and  drug,  and  others  and asked  if  Mr.                                                               
Steiner had any comments.                                                                                                       
MR. STEINER responded that with  regard to regulations, it is not                                                               
something the agency  would specifically look into  as the agency                                                               
is not involved.   He said the agency limits  itself to review of                                                               
the  criminal aspect  and some  policy issues  surrounding how  a                                                               
particular  concern  is  addressed  as  it  relates  to  criminal                                                               
KACI SCHROEDER,  AAG, Criminal Division,  Office of  the Attorney                                                               
General,  Department  of  Law, in  responding  to  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg,  stated that  she  concurs with  Mr.  Steiner in  that                                                               
there was  nothing heard  today that  would change  the testimony                                                               
previously provided to the committee.                                                                                           
[HB 78 was held over.]                                                                                                          
2:56:14 PM                                                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB30 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 30
SB30 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 30
Committe Material - AS 11.81.900.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
Committe Material - Pediatric Academy.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB0079A.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
SB0030A.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 30
Written Testimony - Dr. Hinterberger.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
Written Testimony CRCL-WhitePaper-Jan28-2015.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
Written Testimony Mat-Su Boro Pot resolutions.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
Written Testimony MunicipalAttorneysLegalMemo 01262015.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
Written Testimony Criminal Div Marijuana Presentation 1-26.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
Supporting Documents US DOJ Letter.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
Supporting Documents Ballot Measure 2.pdf HJUD 1/28/2015 1:00:00 PM