Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

04/07/2015 01:30 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
-- Please Note Day & Time Change --
Moved HB 154 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
Moved CSHB 106(STA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
-- Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
        SB  30-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES                                                                    
2:13:50 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                                                               
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that public  testimony remained open from the                                                               
last meeting.                                                                                                                   
2:15:01 PM                                                                                                                    
MEGAN  WEBB, Assistant  Public Defender,  Appellate Unit,  Public                                                               
Defender  Agency, Department  of  Administration,  [said she  was                                                               
available for questions.]                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked   whether  the  Public  Defender                                                               
Agency has any problems or comments on the bill.                                                                                
MS.  WEBB  responded that  the  agency  itself  does not  take  a                                                               
position on whether  the committee should proceed  with Version Q                                                               
or Version T, as it is a  policy decision for the committee.  She                                                               
said  she  echoes statements  from  Cynthia  Franklin during  the                                                               
4/6/15 committee  meeting in terms  of the importance  of clarity                                                               
for both  the public and law  enforcement in focusing all  of the                                                               
marijuana provisions  in one area  to reflect the manner  Title 4                                                               
has treated  alcohol.   She suggested that  the primary  focus is                                                               
ensuring  that not  only what  is passed  is consistent  with the                                                               
initiative, but also provides the most clarity.                                                                                 
2:16:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  surmised that  it should  be consistent                                                               
with  the  initiative  and  also   consistent  with  the  alcohol                                                               
MS. WEBB replied "Yes," in terms  of pulling marijuana out of the                                                               
controlled  substance and  bringing  it into  its own  regulatory                                                               
scheme, such  as that proposed  by Ms. Franklin and  discussed in                                                               
previous testimony.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG gathered  that  she supports  marijuana                                                               
not being  in AS  11.17, which is  the Senate  Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee  theory  rather  than   the  Senate  Finance  Committee                                                               
MS. WEBB  reiterated that  it is a  policy consideration  for the                                                               
committee  as  to  whether  it  wants  to  keep  marijuana  as  a                                                               
controlled substance  or not.   She opined that for  clarity sake                                                               
the scheme  suggested by the Senate  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                               
certainly would mimic  the regulatory scheme created  in Title 4,                                                               
but  she is  aware  there were  policy  considerations in  Senate                                                               
Finance  Committee as  to  why  they wanted  to  keep  it in  the                                                               
controlled substance under Title 11.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  questioned   whether  there  were  any                                                               
provisions of  either version  that she liked,  did not  like, or                                                               
recommends the committee avoid.                                                                                                 
2:18:37 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  WEBB referred  the committee  to Version  Q, page  19, which                                                               
addresses  proposed bail  conditions if  someone is  charged with                                                               
misconduct involving marijuana.                                                                                                 
CHAIR  LEDOUX questioned  whether she  was talking  about the  CS                                                               
which would basically be the  Senate Judiciary Standing Committee                                                               
MS. WEBB answered in the affirmative.                                                                                           
2:19:21 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. WEBB  pointed to [Version  Q, Sec. 27,  AS 12.30.016(g)(3)]],                                                               
page 19, lines 14-15 and lines 27-28, which read:                                                                               
        (g) In a prosecution charging a violation of AS                                                                         
      18.38.200 or 17.38.210, a judicial officer may order                                                                      
     the person to ...                                                                                                          
               (3) provide a sample for a urinalysis or                                                                         
       blood    test   when    requested    by   a    law                                                                       
          enforcement officer;                                                                                                  
2:19:54 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  WEBB explained  that both  the  U.S. Supreme  Court and  the                                                               
Alaska Appellate Courts have determined  that an individual has a                                                               
right  to privacy  with respect  to blood  tests and  urinalysis.                                                               
She  noted  that  absent  exigent  circumstances  would  normally                                                               
require  a law  enforcement officer  to obtain  a search  warrant                                                               
before they  could require  an individual to  provide a  blood or                                                               
urine test.   She  explained that this  provision would  allow an                                                               
officer, without  a search warrant  or probable cause,  to simply                                                               
ask someone  who was released on  bail to provide such  a sample.                                                               
She  expressed  concern  that  it   would  violate  the  person's                                                               
constitutional  protections  under  both the  federal  and  state                                                               
CHAIR LEDOUX  questioned whether  currently a judge  can require,                                                               
as a condition of bail, that a person provide the urinalysis.                                                                   
MS.  WEBB advised  that it  is not  happening now  and that  this                                                               
provision  was added  for  bail conditions  for  marijuana.   She                                                               
noted  it is  a condition  that  appears in  probation under  the                                                               
statutory  provision for  probation terms,  but probation  having                                                               
occurred  after conviction  and  during sentencing  allows for  a                                                               
different constitutional analysis.   Here, she explained, because                                                               
it  is  only a  bail  condition,  at  that  point the  person  is                                                               
presumed not  guilty of the  charge and, therefore, has  a fuller                                                               
constitutional  protection   in  place.    She   noted  that  the                                                               
provision  does   not  currently   exist  in  the   general  bail                                                               
provisions  and  thus  is  not  something  that  could  currently                                                               
2:22:29 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG requested  a written  report supporting                                                               
her  position that  this may  be unconstitutional  which provides                                                               
her suggested changes, together  with points and authorities, but                                                               
not a legal research paper.                                                                                                     
MS. WEBB said she would pass  that request on to Quinlan Steiner,                                                               
Director,  Public Defender  Agency,  and with  his approval  will                                                               
forward a report.                                                                                                               
2:23:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked if  there  is  another area  she                                                               
would like to point out.                                                                                                        
MS.  WEBB   responded  that  Tracey  Wollenberg,   Deputy  Public                                                               
Defender  of the  Appellate  Division,  who in  in  the past  has                                                               
pointed  out  that  with  respect  to  the  misconduct  involving                                                               
marijuana in the  third degree that the  committee might consider                                                               
other exceptions on Version Q, page 32 ...                                                                                      
2:24:35 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  interjected  that   he  had  a  follow-up                                                               
question  and  asked the  committee  to  turn  to [Sec.  27],  AS                                                               
12.30.016(g), page [19, lines 21-26], which read:                                                                               
          (2) submit to a search without a warrant of the                                                                       
     person,  the person's  personal property,  the person's                                                                    
     residence, or any vehicle or  other property over which                                                                    
     the person has control,  for the presence of marijuana,                                                                    
     marijuana  products,  or  marijuana  accessories  by  a                                                                    
     peace  officer who  has reasonable  suspicion that  the                                                                    
     person is  violating the terms of  the person's release                                                                    
     by   possessing  marijuana,   marijuana  products,   or                                                                    
     marijuana accessories;                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned that  if the committee is trying                                                               
to treat alcohol  and marijuana the same, why  would marijuana be                                                               
treated  differently   for  bail  purposes  than   the  state  is                                                               
currently treating alcohol.                                                                                                     
MS.  WEBB  answered  that given  the  constitutional  protection,                                                               
particularly with  blood tests,  the U.S.  Supreme Court  and the                                                               
Alaska Supreme Court has recognized  what an invasion that is and                                                               
that  there is  a potential  constitutional claim  that could  be                                                               
made with respect to the  provision as it appears currently under                                                               
AS  12.30.016(b)(4).   In that  regard, she  explained, the  same                                                               
constitutional issue  that exists  under the new  proposal would,                                                               
under the prior ...                                                                                                             
2:27:15 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX  asked  how  long   AS  12.30.016(b)  has  been  in                                                               
existence,  and how  many  constitutional  challenges have  there                                                               
been since it was enacted.                                                                                                      
MS.  WEBB  responded   that  she  does  not  know   how  long  AS                                                               
12.20.016(b) has been  in existence, but does know  the number of                                                               
appeals that  arise with  respect to  bail conditions  are fairly                                                               
rare.   She explained the reason  being, in part, due  to the way                                                               
appeals  come up  as  often times  it  does not  make  it to  the                                                               
appellate review level due to the nature of the proceedings.                                                                    
2:27:51 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. WEBB referred  to Version Q, Sec. 52,  AS 17.38.220(b)], page                                                               
32, lines 27-31, which read:                                                                                                    
          (b) A person under 21 years of age does not                                                                           
     violate  (a)(2) of  this section  if the  person enters                                                                    
     and remains  on premises registered under  this chapter                                                                    
     at  the  request  of  a peace  officer,  if  the  peace                                                                    
     officer accompanies, supervises,  or otherwise observes                                                                    
     the person's  entry or remaining  on premises,  and the                                                                    
     purpose for  the entry or  remaining on premises  is to                                                                    
     assist in the enforcement of this section.                                                                                 
MS. WEBB stated there is  currently an exception under misconduct                                                               
in the third degree  for a person under 21 years  of age to enter                                                               
a licensed marijuana premises if it  is at the request of a peace                                                               
officer.  She  advised that the committee  may consider extending                                                               
that, particularly  for individuals who  are employed not  by the                                                               
marijuana  establishment  but by  some  other  business, who  are                                                               
required  to be  on  the premises  for a  short  duration in  the                                                               
course and  scope of their  employment.  For example,  she noted,                                                               
someone  working  for UPS  or  FedEx  dropping off  packages  who                                                               
through their natural  business requirements would need  to be on                                                               
premises.    She  noted  that under  the  proposed  version  that                                                               
individual,  if  under 21,  would  be  violating  the law.    She                                                               
suggested  adding  an additional  exception  for  someone who  is                                                               
simply engaging in the course  of another legitimate business who                                                               
is required to be on premises.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  that Ms.  Webb prepare  language                                                               
for the committee.                                                                                                              
2:30:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX  asked what  the [alcohol statutes]  say when  a UPS                                                               
employee enters a bar and is under 21 years of age.                                                                             
MS.  WEBB  advised  that  she   is  not  familiar  with  Title  4                                                               
provisions and does not know the answer.                                                                                        
2:31:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether there  is anything  else                                                               
the committee should consider.                                                                                                  
MS. WEBB offered that those  are their primary concerns, and that                                                               
Ms. Wollenberg  is available  tomorrow and the  rest of  the week                                                               
should the committee like to hear additional testimony.                                                                         
2:32:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked that in  the event her  agency or                                                               
[the  Office of  Special Prosecutions  & Appeals]  has any  other                                                               
suggestions, to please contact Chair LeDoux's office.                                                                           
[Conversation   from  the   audience  between   Staci  Schroeder,                                                               
Department  of Law,  or  Nancy Meade,  Alaska  Court System,  and                                                               
Chair LeDoux  regarding answering  whether identical  language is                                                               
required that  involves someone going  into a bar under  21 years                                                               
of age, and what the law is with UPS employees.]                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.                                                                                           
2:33:03 PM                                                                                                                    
PETER MLYNARIK,  Chief of  Police, City of  Soldotna, said  he is                                                               
testifying  on behalf  of  the Alaska  Association  of Chiefs  of                                                               
Police.  He advised it  supports Version T, the categorization of                                                               
marijuana as  a controlled substance, and  the felony provisions.                                                               
He noted  that without felony  provisions and  only misdemeanors,                                                               
there is nothing to stop the  black market or people from growing                                                               
as many  plants as they  desire.  He  offered that he  agrees the                                                               
sky  is not  falling, although  Alaska is  not at  a level  where                                                               
commercially grown marijuana is at  any big degree other than the                                                               
black  market.   In  speaking with  Colorado  law enforcement  he                                                               
understands that  they are basically  flooded with  marijuana and                                                               
it is hard  to keep up with the different  issues related to that                                                               
substance.   He related that Colorado  law enforcement recommends                                                               
making regulations tighter to begin  with and then loosening them                                                               
up later  because it  is harder  to go the  other direction.   He                                                               
remarked that the  big issue is that marijuana  is regulated like                                                               
alcohol, yet  Alaska still has  tremendous problems  with alcohol                                                               
abuse and its correlation with crimes.                                                                                          
2:36:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX  advised that  she  understands  his position  with                                                               
respect to the felonies and black  market, and while she does not                                                               
necessarily agree  with him  she understands  where he  is coming                                                               
from.   She expressed that  she does  not understand why,  from a                                                               
law enforcement  point of view,  Chief Mlynarik would  think that                                                               
keeping marijuana as a controlled  substance would be better than                                                               
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version.                                                                                
CHIEF MLYNARIK responded  that it is important  to keep marijuana                                                               
under the  controlled substance because if  marijuana is released                                                               
and there are  problems down the road, it would  be harder to put                                                               
marijuana back into  that category.  He opined there  is a lot of                                                               
unknown about marijuana, including  concentrates.  He highlighted                                                               
a report from The Rocky  Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking                                                             
Area,  and  stated Alaska  can  only  look  to the  states  where                                                             
marijuana is legal and review their issues.                                                                                     
2:38:09 PM                                                                                                                    
JASON  HARDER  advised  that  Copper  Center is  an  area  in  an                                                               
unorganized borough  that will be  opted out with no  recourse to                                                               
opt back  in.   He questioned  how that provision  can be  in the                                                               
bill without  ending up in court  since they are citizens  of the                                                               
State of Alaska.  He  offered that Glennallen, Copper Center, and                                                               
Tok are  not cities and  do not  have boundaries, and  have never                                                               
had a local  election as there is  no way to do that.   He stated                                                               
he  was under  the impression  that Copper  Center was  opting in                                                               
within the  initiative.   He offered  that Senator  Lyman Hoffman                                                               
submitted the  subject amendment, and Mr.  Harder understands his                                                               
worries regarding  the villages  not having police  and troopers,                                                               
but  they have  time to  opt out  before the  commercial industry                                                               
starts.  He  said that the Glennallen area has  troopers and does                                                               
not have the problems villages  have with alcohol, and noted that                                                               
alcohol is  a problem everywhere in  the state.  He  related that                                                               
[alcohol  and marijuana]  need to  be separated  even though  the                                                               
state will try to regulate them  somewhat the same.  He explained                                                               
that  if  Copper  Center  is  opted  out  but  eventually  has  a                                                               
mechanism to  opt in, it  would put them  behind the rest  of the                                                               
state  as far  as making  money and  competing in  the commercial                                                               
industry.   He highlighted that  rural Alaska is losing  jobs due                                                               
to the  economy and  that marijuana  will provide  a lot  of jobs                                                               
which  it desperately  needs.    He pointed  out  that the  House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing  Committee  appears  to have  the  desire  to                                                               
implement the  initiative in  a manner  that will  not end  up in                                                               
court and cost the state money.                                                                                                 
2:40:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  is concerned about  the issues                                                               
Mr. Harder  raised and the problems  of how this will  operate in                                                               
unorganized  borough.   He  asked if  anyone  was available  that                                                               
could answer his questions.                                                                                                     
2:41:25 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX  advised that she  was not  sure there is  today but                                                               
someone could be available at a future time.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested  the committee staff ascertain                                                               
that prior  to the  above testimony, that  Mr. Harder  and anyone                                                               
else involved be notified.                                                                                                      
2:42:04 PM                                                                                                                    
ROSS  MULLINS,  said  he  100   percent  endorses  [Mr.  Harder's                                                               
testimony]  regarding unorganized  boroughs.   He  referred to  a                                                               
tradition of roadhouses and other  types of establishments on the                                                               
road  system   in  Alaska   and  stated   that  these   types  of                                                               
enterprises,  who  do serve  liquor,  would  be unable  to  serve                                                               
marijuana  due to  automatically being  opted  out.   He said  it                                                               
presents legal issues that would  not be conducive to obtaining a                                                               
good result.   He  then stated  he would  comment on  the control                                                               
board  issue dealt  with during  the 4/6/15,  HB 42  hearing with                                                               
regard to a federal position on that board ...                                                                                  
CHAIR LEDOUX  interjected that the  testimony today  is regarding                                                               
CSSB  30, and  that  the  Marijuana Control  Board  bill will  be                                                               
before the committee again.                                                                                                     
2:43:49 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. MULLINS referred  to CSSB 30 with regard to  right of privacy                                                               
and taking blood  or urine and described the  actions as invasive                                                               
procedures  that would  require  some type  of  warrant or  court                                                               
authorization so that a law  enforcement officer could not "stab"                                                               
anyone  in the  arm or  force  a urine  test.   He  opined it  is                                                               
different from  a blow  test an  officer can  request from  a DUI                                                               
suspect in that there is a  right to refusal, which can present a                                                               
certain  type of  guilty inference  from the  refusal.   The fact                                                               
that law enforcement  would be invading a person's  body would be                                                               
conditions  for  a  lawsuit.    Additionally,  he  related,  with                                                               
marijuana,  as opposed  to alcohol,  there  are metabolites  that                                                               
linger for up to 30 days in  a person's body even though they may                                                               
not have  any psychoactive effects,  and it could put  the person                                                               
in a tenuous situation legally.   He commented that he would like                                                               
marijuana  removed from  the  controlled  substance category.  He                                                               
opined  that the  intent  of  the initiative  is  to legalize  it                                                               
although it is a de facto  removal from controlled substance to a                                                               
misdemeanor category.                                                                                                           
2:46:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX requested  that Mr.  Mullins start  wrapping up  as                                                               
public testimony  is limited  to five minutes  per person  due to                                                               
the number of people waiting to testify.                                                                                        
2:46:20 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  MULLLINS offered  that  the  main emphasis  for  him is  the                                                               
unorganized borough and  hopes the issue is resolved.   He stated                                                               
that if  Cordova is in  an unorganized  borough there would  be a                                                               
lot of  push back from  the area.  He  said he favors  the Senate                                                               
Judiciary Standing  Committee version and that  Senator Hoffman's                                                               
concerns  regarding "opt  in/opt out,  wet/dry" could  be treated                                                               
like alcohol where a village has an option to opt out.                                                                          
2:48:06 PM                                                                                                                    
LIEF ABEL  stated he  supports almost all  aspects of  the Senate                                                               
Judiciary  Standing  Committee's version  of  SB  30 in  removing                                                               
marijuana from controlled substances as  it is the right thing to                                                               
do.   He offered  that through  personal experience  and research                                                               
that  marijuana  should  not  be classified  as  a  schedule  one                                                               
narcotic which is in line with  the intent of the initiative.  He                                                               
related that  he appreciates that  the Senate  Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee took  the initiative and  put it  into law in  a manner                                                               
that  mirrors  alcohol.    He  further  related  that  it  is  an                                                               
infringement into the privacy of the  people of the state to tell                                                               
them how  they are going  to extract  their medicine at  home and                                                               
how hash oil is  extracted as it should be left  alone and not be                                                               
determined in SB 30.                                                                                                            
2:50:41 PM                                                                                                                    
DEBRA  KIRK  said  she  is  a member  of  the  school  board  and                                                               
addressed the  findings found in  [Version T], page 2,  lines 24-                                                               
25, which read:                                                                                                                 
          (2) several hundred adults and children are                                                                           
     admitted  into  treatment  each   year  in  Alaska  for                                                                    
     marijuana use,  with nearly  46 percent  being children                                                                    
     under 20 years of age;                                                                                                     
MS.  KIRK   pointed  out  that  the   implications  for  Alaska's                                                               
education system are huge and that  Alaska must raise the bar for                                                               
education.  She  offered that a lot of education  funding is tied                                                               
to being able  to teach kids at a higher  level than they've been                                                               
required  to  learn  previously.     She  opined  that  with  the                                                               
legalization of  marijuana the number  of children using  it will                                                               
go up.   She referred to [Version  T, 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 arrest.                                                                                     
2:52:34 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. KIRK stated  that crimes will go up because  if 40 percent of                                                               
adults are  arrested with  marijuana in their  system there  is a                                                               
tangential cause  and effect.   In that regard, she  noted, money                                                               
is spent that Alaska can't  put into education, health and social                                                               
services, or anything  else because Alaska is force  to deal with                                                               
the complications  of a  legalized substance.   She  offered that                                                               
keeping  it   as  a  controlled  substance   would  increase  the                                                               
perception  among children  that there  is a  risk to  using this                                                               
drug.   She related that her  biggest focus is what  the kids are                                                               
thinking  while watching  what adults  are doing  and noted  that                                                               
Alaska desperately needs  to educate its children to  not use the                                                               
substance as  it affects their IQ.   With regard to  the issue of                                                               
blood  tests, she  pointed out  that the  legislature is  charged                                                               
with  protecting  the rest  of  Alaskans  who  did not  vote  for                                                               
legalization  of  marijuana.     She  expressed  that  they  need                                                               
protection and  to know when  driving their kids to  soccer games                                                               
that the  roadways are safe.   She expressed that the  people who                                                               
want the  substance legalized  should be willing  to submit  to a                                                               
blood test  and be honest and  allow their blood and  urine taken                                                               
if driving.  She said she  is turning the tables and asking where                                                               
is her  protection of  freedom and would  definitely like  to see                                                               
something  along those  lines.   She remarked  that she  does not                                                               
advocate  for someone  under the  age of  21 being  allowed in  a                                                               
marijuana establishment.  She referred  to hash oil and marijuana                                                               
products and  stated that individuals  should be allowed  to read                                                               
the  THC  content on  the  package  as  the state  requires  with                                                               
2:55:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MIKE COONS referred  to the question regarding  [people under the                                                               
age of 21  allowed to enter a marijuana establishment]  such as a                                                               
UPS driver.   He  related that a  marijuana establishment  is the                                                               
same as a UPS  driver going into a bar to drop  off a package, he                                                               
drops off a package, does  not consuming any alcohol, and leaves.                                                               
As far as  the two versions are concerned, the  bills are letting                                                               
a genie out of  a bottle that should never have  been let out and                                                               
stated that  he voted against the  initiative.  He noted  that to                                                               
determine anything  over an  ounce is  illegal as  a misdemeanor,                                                               
how will the  state get marijuana violations back to  a felony if                                                               
serious problems  arise.  He  recommended keeping it  as [Version                                                               
T] and advised  that he is a retired paramedic  and has seen what                                                               
happens  in automobile  accidents.   If someone  is drinking  and                                                               
driving they can still get a  blood alcohol test.  He opined that                                                               
a needle  in someone's arm  to get a little  bit blood is  a less                                                               
invasive  procedure than  a  2,000-3,000  pound vehicle  crashing                                                               
into  his wife  because  they are  stoned out  of  their mind  on                                                               
marijuana.  He pointed out that  every person he asked "would you                                                               
still  go along  with strengthening  laws for  drinking, smoking,                                                               
and driving"  said they drive  better stoned.  He  expressed that                                                               
is not acceptable and if someone  hits him that has been drinking                                                               
and driving, "the cops better get him before I do."                                                                             
2:59:23 PM                                                                                                                    
BRUCE  SCHULTE, Coalition  for Responsible  Cannabis Legislation,                                                               
mentioned  that he  forwarded  a letter  to  the House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing  Committee today  and that  he  would speak  to the  two                                                               
versions.  Although, he noted,  he may have misidentified them in                                                               
his  letter as  Version F  and  Version T.   He  referred to  the                                                               
Senate  Judiciary  Standing  Committee  version  and  the  Senate                                                               
Finance  Committee  version  and  pointed out  that  the  "first"                                                               
version was a joint effort  between the Senate Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee  and  House  Judiciary  Standing  Committee  which,  he                                                               
described,  was  a  productive  effort that  led  to  very  solid                                                               
legislation.   The  fundamental  difference is  that [Version  T]                                                               
continues to  treat marijuana as  a controlled  substance wherein                                                               
alcohol  is  not.   He  said  it  criminalizes the  products  and                                                               
substances  rather  than  the  behavior  surrounding  them.    He                                                               
explained  that the  intent  of the  initiative  was to  legalize                                                               
marijuana  and  if  the  committee  continues to  keep  it  as  a                                                               
controlled substance  that is contrary  to the initiative.   That                                                               
being said,  he offered, that  he understands the members  of the                                                               
Senate  Finance  Committee have  good  reasons  for some  of  the                                                               
things  they  were  trying  to achieve,  such  as  sideboards  to                                                               
establish appropriate sanctions for  conduct outside of the realm                                                               
of  a normal  regulated  business.   He  opined  that  it is  not                                                               
necessary to keep marijuana as  a controlled substance to achieve                                                               
that.    It has  become  an  ingrained cultural  imperative  that                                                               
marijuana is  in the controlled  substance yet there has  been no                                                               
evidence to suggest  it ever should have been there  in the first                                                               
place.   A  witness testified  that  marijuana should  be in  the                                                               
controlled  substance  just  in  case   and  did  not  offer  any                                                               
specifics as to where it really  needed to be.  He suggested that                                                               
possibly it  would be  appropriate to  go back  and look  at that                                                               
earlier  version, consider  what  activities  were not  addressed                                                               
adequately  to determine  whether  that bill  could be  developed                                                               
further to  achieve results.   He said  that version of  the bill                                                               
was a very good effort and got everyone where they needed to be.                                                                
3:02:40 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX announced CSSB 30 will be held in committee.                                                                       
3:02:49 PM                                                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 154 Support Letter ACoA.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Additional Documentation--ALSC Restrictions Clarification.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Additional Documentation--Civil Legal Services Fact Sheet.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Fiscal Note - JUD.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Original Bill--Version A.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Sponsor Statement--Version A.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Support for Senate Companion Legislation--Alaska Commission on Aging.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Support for Senate Companion Legislation--Alaska Mental Health Board.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Support for Senate Companion Legislation--Governor's Council on Disabilities.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
HB154 Support for Senate Companion Legislation--VCI.jpg HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 154
CSHB106(STA) Brief Synopsis 032615.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
HB106 Fiscal Note-0897-DOR-CSS-2-6-15.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
HB106 Fiscal Note-JUD.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
HB106 Fiscal Note-LAW.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
HB106 Sectional Analysis - CSHB106(STA).pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
HB106 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
HB106 Supporting Document - Murkowksi Letter.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
HB106 ver W.PDF HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
HB 106
SB30 v T.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
SB 30
CSSSB30 Draft Proposed v Q.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
SB 30
CSSB30(SFIN) Explanation of Changes.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
SB 30
CSSB30(FIN) Sectional Analysis Version T.pdf HJUD 4/7/2015 1:30:00 PM
SB 30