Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

04/06/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
AK-Initiative-Text.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
Hb 123 amend H.1.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
Hb 123 H.2.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB 123 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB 123 Transmittal Letter.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 CS ver E.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 CS ver H.PDF HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 CS ver N.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Fiscal Note - DOA.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Letter of Opposition.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Memo regarding fiscal note revision-DOA.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Supporting Documents - ABC.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123-DCCED-ABC-03-09-15.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Ver A.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
Hotrum v State.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB30 v T.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 30
CSSSB30 Draft Proposed v Q.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 30
CSSB30(SFIN) Explanation of Changes.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 30
CSSB30(FIN) Sectional Analysis Version T.pdf HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 30