Marijuana Control Board

Marijuana Regulations Public Commentary

Public Comments on Draft Set #1

The following comments were received regarding the proposed regulations contained in Draft Set #1 during the first public comment period from May 19-June 20, 2015.

June 20, 2015

I'm writing today to offer my thoughts on the first set of proposed marijuana regulations. It is obvious that a lot of thought went into this packet, and I want to commend the staff of the ABC board for their hard work.

I have only a few small thoughts to add. The definition of "marijuana concentrates" should include all cannabinoid bearing resins, not just THC resins.

The definition of "marijuana products" should not contain the words marijuana products. Using a word or phrase to define itself is ungainly.

Lastly, I am unsure about the legality of "notwithstanding" Alaska Statute in favor of the Alaska Administrative Code. It seems to me that this wording, particularly concerning 3 AAC 306.230, could invite lawsuits.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments, and thank you to the staff of the ABC Board for their hard work.

Sincerely,
Tim Hale.

June 20, 2015

Regulate marijuana like alcohol is a good campaign slogan, but bad public policy. Marijuana isn't like alcohol; and therefore, these five different local options being presented in set one is a little too much. Ballot measure 2 really did two things: it legalized marijuana for people 21+, and it provides a framework for a commercial marijuana industry. BM2 does have an opt-out option, but this option is to opt villages or municipalities out of the commercial aspect of Ballot Measure 2; but that does not mean villages and municipalities can opt their citizens out of their rights to grow, posses, transport, consume marijuana. Set one lays out five different options that are parallel to alcohol. However, marijuana is not alcohol, and therefore should not be regulated like alcohol. There should be one opt-out option, just as BM2 outlines. If a village or municipality wants to opt out of commercial marijuana, fine. That's what the people voted for. If a village or muni chooses to exercise their opt-out, that does not mean their citizens cannot have weed within the municipality (villages can be different)."

There is a huge difference between good marketing and good public policy. Frankly, the concept to "regulate marijuana like alcohol," was a marketing strategy to draw attention to the fact that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, yet, marijuana is treated as if it is far more dangerous than alcohol.

But marijuana rules and regulations should not reflect those of the alcohol industry, or the pharmaceutical industry; because marijuana is "medicine" or "alcohol." Medicine requires doctors and prescriptions. Medicine is tightly controlled and inventoried in pharmacies. Medicine is used to alleviate a temporary condition and then no longer used. People who use medicine for the rest of their lives suffer from terrible permanent afflictions. People who use medicine without the proper controls are addicts in search of a high. Medicine is something made in factories, not backyard and indoor gardens.

And marijuana isn't alcohol. It’s not alcohol; it’s not so dangerous to society that it needs vigilant policing.

The slogan "regulate marijuana like alcohol," should not be applied so literally.

BM2 legalized marijuana for adults 21+ to grow, posses, transport, use. BM2 also commercialized marijuana. BM2 has an opt-out clause, where villages and municipalities can opt-out of the commercial part of BM2, but cities and villages cannot opt their citizens out of their right to grow, posses, transport, and consume marijuana.

Alaska Cannabis Growers Association

Cory Wray

June 20, 2015

Please see the attached PDF including our organizations comments on Packet 1 of the proposed marijuana regulations.

We have also submitted identical comments through the states Online Public Notices system.

Regards,

Bruce Schulte

Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation

CRCL Comments

June 20, 2015

The Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation (CRCL) offers the following comments related to Packet 1 of the draft marijuana regulations:

1) AAC 306.200 Local Options
Paragraph (2) includes multiple types of marijuana businesses under the general heading of “marijuana establishment”. As worded it could be misconstrued to mean that a ban of any one business type would include a ban on all business types.

We suggest re-wording this paragraph to address the possibility that a local vote might result in a ban on one specific business type without affecting other (non-banned) businesses.

Additionally, paragraph (3) includes an exception that would allow a municipality to operate a retail marijuana business even when private businesses have been banned from doing so. This could, in effect, create a government-run monopoly.

We submit the following recommended replacement text for this entire section:

(a) If a majority of the persons voting on the question vote to approve the option, or if the assembly or city council passes an ordinance to the same effect, a municipality shall adopt a local option to prohibit
(1) the sale or importation for sale of marijuana and marijuana products.;
(2) the operation of one or more of the following license types:
(A) a marijuana cultivation facility; or
(B) a marijuana brokerage facility; or
(C) a marijuana products manufacturing facility; or
(D) a marijuana testing facility; or
(E) a marijuana retail facility; or
(F) a marijuana club /lounge

(b) If a majority of the persons voting on the question vote to approve the option, or if the assembly or
city council passes an ordinance to the same effect, an established village shall exercise a local option to prohibit
(1) the sale or importation for sale of marijuana and marijuana products.;
(2) the operation of one or more of the following license types:
(A) a marijuana cultivation facility; or
(B) a marijuana brokerage facility; or
(C) a marijuana products manufacturing facility; or
(D) a marijuana testing facility; or
(E) a marijuana retail facility; or
(F) a marijuana club /lounge

(c) A ballot question to adopt a local option under this section must at least contain language substantially similar to: "Shall (name of municipality or village) adopt a local option to prohibit (local option under (a) or (b) of this section)? (yes or no)."

(d) The ballot for an election on the options set out in (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section must include a brief explanation of the activity that each license type on the ballot may carry out.

(e) If a municipality dissolves under AS 29.06.450(a) or (b), a local option adopted by that municipality under (a) of this section shall continue in effect as the corresponding local option under (b) of this section for an established village having the same perimeter as the previous boundaries of the municipality. Any marijuana establishment license issued to a municipality under 3 AAC 306.___ expires when the municipality dissolves. Establishment of the perimeter of an established village for purposes of this section shall be governed by AS 04.11.508.

2) AAC 306.230 Procedure for local option election
This section stipulates that an election to change to a less-restrictive option may not occur for the first 24 months after the local option is adopted. We believe that this requirement is overly restrictive and should be revised to a 12-month moratorium instead.

3) AAC 306.240 Prohibition of importation or purchase after election
This section states that a local election may result in a ban on importation for personal use / consumption and transportation through a community for testing, sale or processing elsewhere. Both of these are concerning and are contrary to specific provisions of AS 17.38 (Ballot Measure 2).

The title of this section (Prohibition of importation or purchase after election) implies that these regulations are intended to restrict an individuals’ right to purchase marijuana products. However, we contend that these regulations are actually intended to address the operation of businesses in the cultivation, processing, and sale of marijuana products. A persons’ right to purchase in a lawful manner should not be a subject of regulation at all. We suggest that this section be renamed to (Prohibition of importation or SALE [purchase] after election) to more accurately reflect the rightful purpose of the regulations and that the rest of the section be reworded accordingly.

Paragraph (a) limits the ability of an individual to transport marijuana and marijuana products through a community. In the case of communities on the road-system, where products of all sorts are routinely transported through one community on their way to another, this paragraph would have the effect of throttling lawful intrastate commerce that may not even involve the community that is exercising the local option ban. We believe that this provision would fail a court challenge and should be re-worded to achieve it’s intended result without unduly affecting other communities or commerce.

Paragraph (b) places limitations on a persons’ ability to purchase marijuana products rather than limiting the ability of a business to sell the same. In short, it attempts to place legal restrictions on the personal liberties specifically defined in AS 17.38.020. We believe that this is contrary to the personal consumption provisions of AS 17.38.020 and, as written, would actually be a statutory requirement that is beyond the authority of this regulatory board.

4) AAC 306.250
This section stipulates that a local election may result in a ban that extends outward to a 10-mile radius into unincorporated areas. We believe that this provision is overly restrictive and could exceed the authority of a local government to regulate activity beyond their lawful boundaries. We suggest that the effective area of a local ban must be strictly limited to the boundaries under the jurisdiction of that local government.

5) AAC 360.260 Licensing after prohibition on sale except in premises operated by municipality.
We suggest rewording this section to remove exemptions for government-run marijuana businesses.

This section appears to allow for the possibility that local governments could operate commercial marijuana businesses even when private businesses have been banned from doing so. We believe that this could, in effect, create a government monopoly in an industry which should be run by private enterprise. If a local government wishes to operate one or more types of marijuana business, they should be held to the exact same licensing and operating parameters as any other marijuana enterprise in Alaska including the payment of fees and taxes to the state.

The cited authorizing statutes (AS 17.38.090 / AS 17.38.110 / AS 17.38.900) do not appear to provide any justification for this provision as worded. We respectfully submit that it exceeds the legitimate charter of the marijuana control board and should therefore not be written into the regulations as drafted.

6) AAC 306.990 Definitions
“Marijuana concentrate” - Suggest refining this definition to include extraction of both Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiols (CBD) to read as follows:

“marijuana concentrate” means resin, oil, wax, or any other substance derived from the marijuana plant by any method which isolates the THC or CBD-bearing resins of the plant;

Sincerely,

Board of Directors
Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation

June 20, 2015

Sincerely,

Cory Wray

June 20, 2015

Attached is my public testimony for the marijuana set #1
Thank you
Jessica Jansen

Comments

June 20, 2015

Please consider the attached comments to the draft regulations implementing Measure 2 submitted on behalf of the Council on Responsible Cannabis Regulation.

Thank you,

Jordan

CRCR Comments

June 19, 2015

Thank you in advance for including my comments on this proposed Regulation.

Sincerely,

Rhonda A. Hubbard

Comments

June 19, 2015

Please see the attached comments and suggestions for the 2015 Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Notice of Proposed Regulations Regarding Marijuana and Local Options

Thank you,

Melissa Colebank

Comments

June 19, 2015

Please see attached comments, supplemental to the comments filed by the Kenai Peninsula Borough dated June 18,2015. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions you may have.

Thank you,

Pamela Highley

Administrative Assistant

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Mayors Office

907-714-2150

KPB Supplemental Comments

June 19, 2015

Please find attached comments from Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Luke Hopkins regarding proposed regulations regarding marijuana and local options.

We sincerely appreciate the work of the ABC on this matter, as well as the opportunity to comment.

Best,

Joe Hardenbrook

Special Assistant to the Mayor

Fairbanks North Star Borough

FNSB Comments

June 19, 2015

1- sec.240…”The voters assembly may vote to prohibit importation.”

This needs further clarification as it goes directly against the intent of Measure 2 allowing each person over 21 the ability to possess and travel with up to one ounce of marijuana.

2-sec.250…”If the sale of marijuana products is prohibited the board may not issue a license for marijuana establishments within 10 miles of the boundary.”

Please clarify…is there a governing body that has jurisdiction 10 miles outside the boundary? Who has that authority outside of the boundary? It would appear this is overstepping.

3-sec.260…”If voters or assembly vote to prohibit marijuana establishments except by a municipality, the board may not issue a license to any other person within the boundary.”

This is probably one of the most problematic sections. This would appear to say that the local governments may run marijuana establishments. It goes on to say that if the voters vote to prohibit marijuana establishments except by a municipality that the board may not issue a license to any other person within 10 miles of the boundary. This was NOT what voters voted for in measure 2. The people voted YES on Measure 2 and the people shall carry it out. There is nothing in Measure 2 providing for state or local government owned marijuana facilities.

4- DEFINITIONS

“assist” does not include: (c) growing marijuana for another person in a place other than that persons residence.

Measure 2 reads in Section 17.38.030 part (3) “Marijuana cultivation may only occur on property lawfully in possession of the cultivator or with consent of the person in lawful possession.”

This would allow cultivation on property with consent of the owner.

“marijuana concentrate” means resin, oil, wax, or any other substance derived from the marijuana plant which isolates the THC-bearing resins of the plant.

This should not specify THC bearing resins as there is no way to separate THC cannabinoids from CBD or any other cannabinoids.I suggest this to read, “marijuana concentrate means oil, wax, or any other substance derived from the marijuana plant which isolates the cannabinoid bearing resins of the plant.”

“possess” means having physical possession or the exercise of dominion or control over property.

Again, this is very problematic. If we use the proposed definition of “possess” it would appear than only one person per household would be able to exercise their right to grow 6 plants regardless of how many adults over 21 reside in the home.

Measure 2 reads in Section 17.38.20, “Not withstanding any other provision of law, except as otherwise described in this chapter, the following acts by persons 21 years of age or older are LAWFUL…(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than 6 marijuana plants, with 3 or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where they were grown.”

Measure 2 did NOT say each person over 21 had to live alone to exercise their rights. We the people voted YES on Measure 2. YES to each adult over 21 able to grow 6 plants. Please respect the intent of the initiative as written.

Thank You for your consideration,

Nick Miller

June 19, 2015

Greetings!

Please see the attached public comments for Set 1 of regulations. Thank you so much for your time!

Sara

Sara Williams

CEO Midnight Greenery

(907) 887-6130

MG Comments

June 19, 2015

To whom it may concern:

what makes someone a viable candidate to receive a license, how much money will it cost to obtain a growers license to sell commercially. or a retail license.

Do you have to be a resident, if so for how long. Will there be any guidelines about the restrictions and regulations and any idea of how to prepare

the business, when it is not known if I will get a permit.

much appreciated,

Amanda Godair

June 19, 2015

I understand that the “Alaska Alcoholic Beverage [Marijuana] Control Board” will be holding another meeting on July 2, 2015 to continue addressing the adoption of “Regulations” to implement the Alaska Marijuana Ballot Initiative No. 2 (2014). Although I will not be able to attend the meeting in Fairbanks, I submit this email message into the "Record" of that Meeting.

There is one question that needs to be addressed before any consideration be given to the adoption of any “Regulation,” that being the required action is defining the word: “lawful” as that word is used within the “Marijuana Ballot Initiative[s]” (e.g. Alaska Statutes, Title 17. Chapter 38).

This past Monday (06-15-15), the “Supreme Court” for the “State of Colorado” defined the word “lawful” as used within the “Colorado Marijuana Ballot Initiative.” The “Marijuana Ballot Initiative” of the “State of Colorado” was worded almost identical to the “’Marijuana Ballot Initiative No. 2’ (2014)” of the “State of Alaska.” In both “Ballot Initiatives,” the Sponsors used the word “lawful” throughout. As the use of the word “lawful” is identical to both “Marijuana Ballot Initiatives” of "Alaska" and "Colorado," the definition of that word “lawful” as given by the State of Colorado Supreme Court must be given to the word “lawful” as used within the State of Alaska’s “Marijuana Ballot Initiative No. 2” (e.g. Alaska Statutes, Title 17. Chapter 38).

According to the Judges of the Colorado State Supreme Court, for “Marijuana” to be “lawful” for any use – “Marijuana” must not only be lawful under the laws of a “State,” but “Marijuana” must also be lawful under the laws of the government of “The United States of America”:

“Coats contends that the General Assembly intended the term “lawful” here to mean “lawful under Colorado state law,” which, he asserts, recognizes medical marijuana use as “lawful.” Coats, ¶ 6, 303 P.3d at 149. We do not read the term “lawful” to be so restrictive. …

“The CSA lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance, meaning federal law designates it as having no medical accepted use, a high risk of abuse, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Id. at § 812(b)(1)(A)–(C). This makes the use, possession, or manufacture of marijuana a federal criminal offense, except where used for federally-approved research projects. Id. at § 844(a); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005). There is no exception for marijuana use for medicinal purposes, or for marijuana use conducted in accordance with state law. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); see also Gonzales, 545 U.S.at 29 (finding that “[t]he Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail,” including in the area of marijuana regulation). Coats’s use of medical marijuana was unlawful under federal law and thus not protected by [Colorado State Law] section 24‑34‑402.5.”

Brandon Coats vs. Dish Network, L.L.C.,
Case No. 13SC394 @ Paragraphs 18 & 19.

If another legal definition is to be given to the word “lawful” as used within the “Alaska Marijuana Ballot Initiative” from that which is given by the “Colorado State Supreme Court,” please provide the legal arguments and referances which the “Alaska Alcoholic Beverage [Marijuana] Control Board” relies upon for its definition.

A copy of this message has been forwarded to the “Office of the Alaska Attorney General.” A true and correct copy of the “State of Colorado Supreme Court Opinion” of “Brandon Coats vs. Dish Network, L.L.C.” is attached to this message as a PDF Document.

Gordon Warren Epperly

June 19, 2015

I much appreciate this opportunity to comment before all is written into these regulations. My past experience with alcohol regulations was that much of it was written only after the fact of death, lawsuits and settlements. Here I see a chance to impact the regulations being drawn up in a more proactive approach rather than after the fact of tragedy and court cases. Most of my comments concern the potential costs to private persons of complying with these changes.

In the stated Goals for Regulation, the first three of the five goals need to be especially at the forefront of discussion, I believe, because they represent the constitutional and privacy rights of the underage persons, as well as those of the adult non-cannabis user. For this reason, I feel strongly that the regulations should reflect the usefulness of cannabis lounges or clubs in the communities that support it. It is my opinion that without these public places, the rights of the children and non-cannabis users in a given household will be overrun by the rights of the cannabis-using rent or mortgage payor. Our youth particularly need for the cannabis user to have a place to partake outside of the home. Smoking is obviously a thing we want to keep away from others, but also the activity of edibles in the presence of children is a concern for many parents. There is no denying that the children most often pay the highest “costs“ when it comes to any "using” household, be it tobacco, alcohol or cannabis.

Also, I believe that in cannabis there is a singularity of safety that should require sales be kept separate from the more dangerous sales of both alcohol and tobacco. The concept of the red stripe on the ID for known alcoholics evolved from the known consequences of those repeaters of abuse. There is yet no such proof that cannabis users should ever require such a label. This fact alone, in my opinion, mandates that the retail sales of cannabis not be conducted on the same premise as alcohol, so as to not quell the rights of that same red stripe person to acquire cannabis, a safer product by far. In addition, the lower age of nineteen for tobacco sales itself should preclude cannabis from being sold on the same premise as traditional smoke-shops.

Additionally, I wish to express my thoughts on the idea of retail sales by my governing bodies. I want my government to focus on public health and safety for all persons, particularly those who are the most vulnerable in our society. I think sales of recreational cannabis should be left to the private industry, only to be taxed and regulated by my government. If the governing bodies of Alaska wanted to go into cannabis sales they should have done it years ago when it came to medical marijuana, rather than grudgingly issuing a card program to pacify the medical community, then going on to discriminate against those who availed themselves of that process.

Two final thoughts on the subject of licensing, if I may. The background check for cannabis should be the same as for alcohol, at least ten years on the fingerprints. The licenses that are issued, I believe, should not be transferable in perpetuity once acquired, but should go back to the state when one ceases to operate. This would further insure that the license would be in constant use for generating commerce in the communities, not merely held by the licensee without operation.

Thank you for your time,

Robin Jeffery

June 19, 2015

Please see the attached two-page Word document, commenting on Set #1 of the marijuana regulations.

This is the second comment letter I have sent you today.

Very truly yours,
Dean J. Guaneli
Douglas, Alaska

Comments Set #1

June 19, 2015

Please see the attached letter from Peter Sandberg. Original letter to follow via courier.

Regards,

CARRIE L. SISSON

Comments

June 19, 2015

Please find attached comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Regulations posted May 19, 2015, regarding Marijuana and Local Options.

In the event the link does not work in the attached comments, also included in this email is a .pdf of the referenced document.

Thank you,

Kindest regards,

Tami.

Tami L. Wahl

Special Regulatory Counsel

American Herbal Products Association / ahpa.org

8630 Fenton Street, Suite 918

Silver Spring, MD 20910 / P: 301.588.1171 x.111 / C: 301.633.3363

30+ years of working for you!

Comments

June 19, 2015

Please see the attached two-page Word document, commenting on Set #0 of the marijuana regulations.

Very truly yours,
Dean J. Guaneli
Douglas, Alaska

Comments Set #0

June 19, 2015

Please see attached letter from the Kenai Peninsula Borough, regarding Comments on Proposed Regulations – 3 AAC 306.200-270 and .990. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions you may have.

Thank you,

Pamela Highley

Administrative Assistant

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Mayors Office

907-714-2150

907-714.2377 ~ Fax

KPB Comments

June 18, 2015

Hello Marijuana Control Board:

I am a 67 year old lifelong Alaskan.

I would like to share a few opinions on the issues you will be discussing.

Since the public has voted for legalization, I am hopeful that the rules and regulations that you create will respect the spirit and intent of Prop 2.

I am aware that there are some places where it is inappropriate to consume cannabis. However, a person should not have to hide in their closet to do so.

I think that one should be allowed to consume pretty much anywhere on their own private property, including outside in their yard and on their deck.

I also think it should be allowed in some public areas, including designated campgrounds and some hiking trails.

I am hopeful that you will craft regulations that will support and nurture private businesses. If we support Alaskan growers and retailers, we can maximize this new revenue source and strengthen the state's economy.

I support allowing cannabis in private clubs and at conventions. I also think that hotels and bed and breakfasts should be allowed to have designated rooms where it is allowed.

Regarding edibles, and any form of cannabis, I am definitely sympathetic to protecting children. I am a parent and a grandpa. However, cannabis is now legal. Parents must be responsible for keeping it out of children's reach, just as they are for their guns, alcohol, prescription medications, chemical cleaning substances and poisons, and everything else that almost all of us have in our homes that are dangerous to children. Many of these things can actually kill them. Cannabis will not.

I urge you to be fair when creating laws for impaired driving. As you probably know, some tests can detect marijuana a month after it is consumed. However, a marijuana high lasts only a few hours. I am not that familiar with drug testing, but I have read that there are tests which can detect use in the last few hours, when a person is actually impaired. That is a fair test.

Finally, I am hopeful that at some point, the controlled substance designation will be removed. Marijuana simply does not belong on that list.

Thank you for reading my opinions and good luck with your very important work.

Steve Waldron

June 18, 2015

Attached please find comments submitted on behalf of the the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol on the first set of proposed rules on marijuana. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Tim Hinterberger
Chairman
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol

Comments

June 18, 2015

Enclosed are my public comments on Set 1. Thank you for accepting public comment and working hard on this issue.

Highest Regards,

Leif B. Abel

Comments

June 18, 2015

Attached is a letter submitted for written comments on the proposed regulation changes, regarding marijuana and local options, from the City of Kenai’s Attorney, Scott Bloom on behalf of the Kenai City Council. Please confirm receipt of this correspondence. The original copy will be put in the mail today. Thank you Sir.

Jacqueline Van Hatten

Legal Administrative Assistant

City of Kenai

210 Fidalgo Avenue

Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794

(907) 283-8225 B

(907) 283-3014 F

City of Kenai Comments

June 16, 2015

306.200(a) and (b): Add "or limit" after "option to prohibit."

Both AS 17.38.110 and .100(e) allow local limits in lieu of full prohibition so why not include that concept here? Obviously limits must comport with AS 17.38 but these reg's could provide details for the process for adopting limits as supplement to the general process of the Administrative Procedures Act required by statute.

306.200(a)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(A): the term "brokerage facility " is not defined in the Initiative nor in these proposed regulations. Nor is the term totally without ambiguity. Give it a defined meaning.

306.200(b): Various bills would have defined "established village" but they did not become law and the term is not defined (or used) in the initiative. Give the term a specific meaning (i.e. 25 or more residents within 5 mile radius of post office or community center.)

End for today.

Sincerely Robert Reges

June 16, 2015

Please find attached my comments on the first set of marijuana regulations posted by the ABC Board last month. As noted in my comments, the questions I've raised do not necessarily need a direct answer, but were raised as considerations for the Board as they make any further changes to (and future decisions about) the regulations as a whole.

Best,

Anna B.

AB Comments

June 16, 2015

Please see attached letter from the Mat-Su Borough’s Clerk, Lonnie McKechnie and Borough Attorney, Nicholas Spiropoulos. A hard copy of the letter will follow in the mail.

Respectfully,

Linda G. Vinson, PLS

Legal Secretary I

(907) 861-8676

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Borough Attorney's Office

350 East Dahlia Avenue

Palmer, AK 99645

June 16, 2015

MSB Comments

June 16, 2015

How do areas opt out of various alcohol regulations ie;sales or possession? If it's by a vote of the people that's one thing but the proposed regs for cannabis give elected leaders or a vote of the people. I think the ACB should delete the elected officials, my reasons are the recent actions of the Wasilla mayor, the anti abortion section in bill #30, the Alaska legislature in this years session seemed to mirror the federal gridlock, old white guys having their strings pulled by money men or "faith" based pressure groups or oil guys.

I have a 1 st cousin that spent 2 tours as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, he has finally figured out he has PTSD and has been able to put his life back together after all these years by use of cannabis. Finally the feds are allowing research on this and other possible uses of cannabis, CO has some well publicized examples of this use to prevent seizures of several kinds.

Some folks are still " over my dead body" or "there ain't no Global warming" if they are in charge and have consolidated their position they can do just about what they want (Shia law), my wife encountered this in working for an Alaskan native village. State funding was not put to use correctly and she got fired for trying to follow State regs, neither the state nor village members could stand up to this guy and affect a change. He has since passed and things have turned around somewhat.

The voters decided this don't let a few crackpots reverse the vote. The more places opt out the larger the black market will become, not everyone can work on the slope. There are lots of places where jobs and income are needed this industry could help.

Thanks Bruce

June 13, 2015

As we see the progress continue towards the implementation of Measure 2 we also see new regulations as specified in Measure 2. There is a serious concern that what the people voted for will not be what is received. We urge you to allow measure 2 to do it’s job and not over regulate or create too many rules that undermine Measure 2. The more ink to paper the more difficult the process becomes.

Public testimony shall be submitted to the following effect:

1- sec.240…”The voters assembly may vote to prohibit importation.”

This needs further clarification as it goes directly against the intent of Measure 2 allowing each person over 21 the ability to possess and travel with up to one ounce of marijuana. Please see “1” on copy provided.

2-sec.250…”If the sale of marijuana products is prohibited the board may not issue a license for marijuana establishments within 10 miles of the boundary.”

Please clarify…is there a governing body that has jurisdiction 10 miles outside the boundary? Who has that authority outside of the boundary? It would appear this is overstepping.

3-sec.260…”If voters or assembly vote to prohibit marijuana establishments except by a municipality, the board may not issue a license to any other person within the boundary.”

This is probably one of the most problematic sections. This would appear to say that the state may run marijuana establishments. It goes on to say that if the voters vote to prohibit marijuana establishments except by a municipality that the board may not issue a license to any other person within 10 miles of the boundary. This was NOT what voters voted for in measure 2. The people voted YES on Measure 2 and the people shall carry it out. There is nothing in Measure 2 providing for state owned marijuana facilities.

4- DEFINITIONS

“assist” does not include: (c) growing marijuana for another person in a place other than that persons residence

Measure 2 reads in Section 17.38.030 part (3) “Marijuana cultivation may only occur on property lawfully in possession of the cultivator or with consent of the person in lawful possession.

This would allow cultivation on property with consent of the owner. Period.

Please see “2” on copy provided.

“marijuana concentrate” means resin, oil, wax, or any other substance derived from the marijuana plant which isolates the THC-bearing resins of the plant.

This should not specify THC bearing resins. We suggest this to read, “marijuana concentrate means oil, wax, or any other substance derived from the marijuana plant which isolates the cannabinoid bearing resins of the plant.”

“possess” means having physical possession or the exercise of dominion or control over property.

Again, this is very problematic. If we use your new definition of “possess” it would appear than only one person per household would be able to exercise their right to grow 6 plants regardless of how many adults over 21 reside in the home.

Measure 2 did NOT say each person over 21 had to live alone to exercise their rights. We the people voted YES on Measure 2. YES to each adult over 21 able to grow 6 plants. You must respect the initiative as written. Please see “3” on copy provided.

MEASURE 2…PAGE1

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as otherwise provided in this chapter,*1* the following acts, by persons 21 years of age or older, are lawful and shall not be a criminal or civil offense under Alaska law or the law of any political subdivision of Alaska or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Alaska law:

(a) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, *1* or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce or less of marijuana;

(b)*3* Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown;

PAGE 2

Sec. 17.38.030. Restrictions on personal cultivation, penalty.

(a) The personal cultivation of marijuana described in AS 17.38.020(b) is subject to the following terms:

(1) Marijuana plants shall be cultivated in a location where the plants are not subject to public view without the use of binoculars, aircraft, or other optical aids.

(2) A person who cultivates marijuana must take reasonable precautions to ensure the plants are secure from unauthorized access.

*2*(3) Marijuana cultivation may only occur on property lawfully in possession of the cultivator or with the consent of the person in lawful possession of the property.

This testimony is supported by:

Dollynda Phelps

Alaska Green Resources

Jessica Jansen

CannaFarm Co-Op

Nick Miller

Anchorage Cannabis Business Association

Jeremiah Emerson

Alaska Cannabis Collective

Lisa Coates

Richard Phillips

Travis Endsley

Jody Arnold

Patty Briscoe Reid

Matt Spencer

Robert Harrison

June 11, 2015

I have been an Alaskan resident for over 30 years and a business owner for owner since 2006. I appreciate this invitation to be involved with the regulation. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Terms…

“Set 1” = The first set of proposed regulations

“AS17” = The law passed to ‘Tax and regulate the production, sale and use of marijuana’

Set 1 AAC 306.240. “Prohibition of importation or purchase after election”. In this section the board is defining “prohibition” if a municipality or village elects to “Change Local Option”. The proposed regulation states “on the first day of the month following the election, may not knowingly send, transport or bring marijuana or marijuana products into a municipality or established village”.

In AS17, section 17.38.020 it states, “persons 21 years of age or older are lawful and shall not be a criminal or civil offense under Alaska law“, “transferring one ounce or less of marijuana and up to 6 immature plants to a person who is 21 years of age or older without remuneration”. Set 1 regulation’s cannot remove a person’s right to transfer one ounce or less of marijuana and up to 6 immature plants.

Additionally, in AS17 in section AS17.38.110 defines Local Control, nowhere in that definition does “Local Control” have the power to remove a person’s right to transfer one ounce or less of marijuana and up to 6 immature plants.

In my home area, the Kenai Peninsula, Set 1’s purposed regulation “Prohibition of importation or purchase after election”, may affect the residents in an extremely negative way. For example; If a person legally buys marijuana in North Kenai but lives 20 miles away in Sterling, Alaska, the only roadway goes through City of Kenai and the City of Soldotna. If either city votes for “Prohibition of importation or purchase after election”, the person who made a legal purchase will have to break the law to drive home.

In effect, if these regulations support a person’s legal right purchase up to an ounce but do not support a person’s right to possess, carry or transport, it will obliterate AS17.

“Possess” – definition. I want to comment about “domain or control over property”. Our American culture is a family base society. As these regulations go forward, we must acknowledge that more often than not, “control over property” is rarely one adult person. We must also acknowledge that AS17 gives us possession rights and nowhere does AS17 state that we lose these rights because of our marital status, economic situation or family size. This board cannot remove any of Alaskans possession rights based purely on the fact that we do not live alone.

AAC 306.200 and AAC 306.260. Both of these proposed regulations set a condition where an assembly or municipality can prohibit retail marijuana licenses except for those operated by the municipality. Allowing only municipality operated stores may mirror alcohol regulations but it is in contrast to the intent of AS17. Giving a city the power to legally devastate an Alaskan businessman’s livelihood in 90 days, only to take over the store, seems un-American.

I hope this board recognizes the importance of a successful conversion from a black market to a legal market. Any regulations made should support this conversion not hinder.

Thank you,

Patricia Patterson

June 11, 2015

The new regulations seem fine. The problem is that there are currently a handful of businesses that are already in business operating illegally while the rest of us patiently wait for the laws to be created and the application process to happen. I can't tell you how for frustrating it is to watch a business like Discreet Deliveries brag about how much money they are already making ($200,000/month). They say they are selling empty bags with free weed in them. They are paying growers for large amounts of marijuana. They are operating almost exclusively with no competition and will have a very unfair advantage when the licenses finally go out. They need to not only be shut down but shouldn't be allowed to take part when actually commercial licenses go out. When the head of the Control Board goes on the news and tells everyone Discreet Deliveries is breaking the law and nothing is done it ruins your credibility. I know a number of businesses that will be starting early because of this. It's like our immigration laws- you are rewarding the people that are breaking the law and wonder why no one listens.
I attended the Northwest Cannabis Conference and what I saw was mostly out of state people and a few in state that jumped the gun and are selling marijuana and seeds such as 907 seeds. None of this should have happened yet.
So is Discreet Deliveries Legal or not? Is this how this thing is going to go? Can the rest of us start early too?

Thank-you, Tim Holm

June 10, 2015

People who want to consume marijuana need to be able to get it from somewhere legal. I understand that some communities may decide to ban businesses, but the proposed rule you have would also make it illegal for a person to get it from another town where sales are legal and bring it back home. I don't think that is fair, and I hope you will change this rule.

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

Measure 2 is about saving law enforcement time so they can go work on more important things. I see no reason to create a system that makes people criminals just for transporting marijuana from one part of the state to another, whether it's for themselves or it's just part of their job. I think that goes too far.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Mr. David Cormany

June 10, 2015

My comment is there needs to be regulation and taxes just as with alcohol. It's a "wild west" out there as I observed when I had the occasion to look up a common garden weed that I was dealing with in Fairbanks. Hundreds of marijuana responses overwhelmed any kind of other weed entry. I could never get passed them. I finally dug out a gardening book at home for my answer.

Thanks,

Doris Robbins

June 10, 2015

I am happy to see that rulemaking under Measure 2 is underway, and thank you for helping move the process along. But one proposed rule included in the first set of draft regulations should be amended.

While local government can limit certain types of businesses within their jurisdiction, they cannot limit individuals who are complying with Measure 2. One of these activities is "transporting" marijuana. A resident in one part of the state should clearly have the ability to travel to another part of the state to make a purchase particularly if he or she cannot purchase it locally. That is exactly the type of activity the voter initiative set out to allow.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Stacey Bushell

June 10, 2015

In the proposed regulations 3 AAC 306.990. Definitions, the definition of "possess" must follow the intent of the marijuana initiative to allow each individual the right to "possess". This definition seems to limit the right of possession to a landowner. Landowners may delegate, allow, and ignore activities as they wish on their land.

If this proposed definition is intended to control a landowner's rights it should be somewhere else in regulation.

If this definition is intended to control "the act of possession" ( to possess) of marijuana and its products, processing, paraphernalia, and transporting, then it should be changed.

Proposed definition: "possess" means having physical possession or the exercise of dominion or control as may be delegated to allow the legal and orderly limitations set forth in this chapter and in statute.

William Garry

June 9, 2015

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Denman Byram

June 9, 2015

Additionally, I hope that the state learns from CO and WA and enacts SENSIBLE tax rates, commiserate to those found on alcohol and tobacco.

Both alcohol and tobacco are taxed at rates that prevent black markets from dealing in those substances, in all but dry villages in our own states particular situation. If we are to reduce the RAMPANT good ole boy network of black market growers that have proliferated our state for the last 40 years, we HAVE to have low and sensible tax rates. We do not want situations like have unfolded in WA with farmers sitting on 1000lbs of marijuana, unable to move it, due to its taxation fallout.

Other states have taxed both growing and retail, leading to taxes in excess of 60% on the end product. this is no where NEAR in line with what we have successfully achieved with both alcohol and tobacco. it is important to not use marijuana as a cash cow for everything under the sun as far as taxing it, as we have seen this fail horribly in CO and WA. It is to be regulated similar to alcohol under the measure. it should be taxed at a similar rate as well.

Also, I would like to see an exemption on the import of 190 proof Ethanol or Everclear, which used to be sold in the state, for producers of Marijuana extracts. This is most healthful solvent that can be used for extractions, offering low probability of explosions, and is a food grade solvent that will not poison people. If the use of inferior solvents such as Butane that carry a high explosion risk for novices is to be curbed, we need to have the ability for our producers to access 190 proof Ethanol. 151 proof does not work, and isopropyl, then next preferred solvent, is toxic if not purged properly. Super critical CO2 extraction is both safe an effective, but priced out of reach for most producers. 190 proof Everclear is the industry standard for smaller scale production of cannabis oils. This issue should be addressed and cannabis oil producers should be able to import 190 proof ethanol for SAFE production.

Thank you for your service and attention to these matters.

Doug McCort

June 9, 2015

Adults can purchase and possess marijuana in amounts allowed by the voter initiative -- that is really the heart of Measure 2. While a local government may be able to limit a business's ability to sell marijuana within its borders, it cannot prevent individuals from exercising their right under the law and shouldn't be able to prevent shipments between other communities.

I was initially surprised to find out that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is proposing a rule that would outlaw individuals from obtaining marijuana in one part of the state from bringing it back home, if their local government bans retail shops within its own local community. I don't understand how that adds up. If I cannot legally buy in town, then going to another place is only common sense. This rule is simply not how Measure 2's protections work.

The proposed rule would even allow local governments to outlaw shipments that aren't even available for sale in that community, but just on their way somewhere else. To me, that goes too far and gives local governments the ability to hurt commerce statewide.

Please fix this. I can understand some places may not want a retail business to operate if that is what the voters choose but keeping people from bringing home marijuana for personal use, or blocking lawful business activity in other parts of the state, is not what this law is about.

Sincerely,

Ms. Carolyn Heuer

June 9, 2015

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Ms. Monika Switzer

June 9, 2015

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Mr. Larry Mc_MAHILL

June 9, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

People who want to consume marijuana need to be able to get it from somewhere legal. I understand that some communities may decide to ban businesses, but the proposed rule you have would also make it illegal for a person to get it from another town where sales are legal and bring it back home. This is clearly illegal according to Measure 2, and I hope you will change this rule to prevent future litigation.

Measure 2 is clearly intended to protect any individual that wants to transport/ship ship marijuana through a local community, even if it doesn't want retail sales. That is what we voted for, and it passed.

Measure 2 is about saving law enforcement time so they can go work on more important things. Creating a system that makes people criminals just for transporting marijuana from one part of the state to another, whether it's for themselves or it's just part of their job is clearly counterproductive to this goal.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes an endless lawsuit that the state is sure to lose.

Sincerely,

Mr. Vincent Sanford

June 9, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Ms. ahr kpling

June 9, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Deric Counter

June 9, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Ms. Leah Levinton

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Please do not over think it - seems unnecessary for anyone to have to vote on a ban ? Alaskans already voted to make it legal! - simply set up a permitting process and make revenue for your village / city

Everyone is happy.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Mercedes Hansen

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Peter Beachy

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Brenda Davis

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Kelly neeser

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Sincerely,

Ms. Vanessa Liston

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Ms. Candy Norman

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Matthew Matta

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Ms. susan Bright

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Michael Maass

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Rory Spurlock

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

It really doesn't make sense, and I hope you will correct this provision before it is adopted.

Thank you for your service.

My view: -Now really, if a product is legal in our state, but you can't have it where you are, then it's Not legal? -Now that's truly confusing; we voted to be able to use it, use it one must acquire it.

The businesses must be able to acquire it if I can't grow it, and I should have some access to a safe place to consume a product in a manner that's works for me(mostly money and scheduling time). Hmm, sounds like free enterprise waiting for rules to let them into the gates of consumers who aren't resoundingly restricted by work/life drug testing.- You can have your can of beer or glass of wine or medical prescription, but some are waiting for just a toke or even a nibble to finally relax.-

Sincerely,

Ms. Kathleen Dunning

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Sincerely,

Mr. Robert Davis

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Sincerely,

Ms. Kate Martini

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Sincerely,

Mrs. Kim edwards

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Ms. Peggy Svrcek

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Sincerely,

Mr. Brian Rogers

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. George Bennett

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Sincerely,

Mr. jay rusie

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent

Any provision that creates a loophole for the resurgence of a black market is both foolish and unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Mr. Darren Lynn

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

It a seems like a trap to me. People in every town/every village deserve the right to this incredible medicine.

Thank you for your service.

Brandy Billing

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Joshua McHoes

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Kathy Stone

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Also, I don't think it's fair that a local government could prohibit businesses from transporting marijuana through their jurisdiction on their way to another part of the state. Local communities should not be able to hurt businesses or the customers they I am happy to see that rulemaking under Measure 2 is underway, and thank you for helping move the process along. But one proposed rule included in the first set of draft regulations should be amended.

Thank you for your service. elsewhere.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. michael garner

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Ms. Delphine Smith

June 8, 2015

Dear marijuana regulatory control board,

Yet one of the proposed rules, 3 AAC 306.240, is written so that jurisdictions that opt out of retail stores would also ban individuals from bringing marijuana back home from other parts of the state or prevent shipments from reaching their destinations in other parts of Alaska. It really doesn't make sense, and I hope you will correct this provision before it is adopted. To allow this could be detrimental to people that need to purchase Medical Marijuana. They should be able to purchase and bring home the medicine that they need.

Quit trying to gut the bill, and follow the language of the initiative.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. michael garner

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gordon Williams

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Andrew Brough

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Sincerely,

Mr. Colten Thiel

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mrs. sue smith jurco

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Simon Smith

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Dr. susan m whitefeather

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Plus, it would even be illegal to ship marijuana through a local community if it doesn't want retail sales. That really goes beyond what we voted for.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Mr. Hugh Brown

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Mr. Donovan Anderson

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

I am a bit worried that the clause for the transportation of marijuana through a village or town opting out could have very bad consequences.

I agree that a village or town has the right to deem it illegal for sale, cultivation, and consumption. I also believe that the way in which it is worded could be extremely problematic for cultivation in other parts of the state. Say for instance someone is growing in Delta Junction, and they want to legally sell to a dispensary in Fairbanks, but North Pole or Salcha has made transport illegal. They would then have to drive all the way to the Glenn Highway, then across to Palmer, then up the Parks Hwy to Fairbanks. Given the extremely limited routing of Alaskan road systems, I believe that the transport clause is complete absurd. I also fail to see how the simple transportation of a substance through a municipality poses any threat whatsoever. Given the fact that it will still remain illegal to transport via Air Carrier per federal law, it is severely limiting the possibility for the initiative to meet the rights given by Measure 2.

These rules need to work within the rights in Measure 2, not find a way to limit them. Please change this rule before it becomes permanent.

Sincerely,

Mr. Seth McKay

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Sincerely,

Mr. Michelle Myers

June 8, 2015

Dear Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Ms. Glenda Korn

June 6, 2015

I am a disabled veteran who has written the VA many times on cannabis issues as well as their prescribing against guidelines, misleading suicide statistics and over prescribing. I am currently on vacation right now so I can't do a new testimony at this time, but I would like to submit my most recent letter to the VA has my testimony so that it may benefit other veterans and people in the future.

My letter is attached.

- Jason Howard

VA Letter

June 3, 2015

Hi, just wanted to comment on Set one , local option reg. I think that communities need to know what they are opting out of befor they are allowed to opt out. My reasoning is that MJ is just coming out of the closet and there are still a lot of ghosts and myths surrounding MJ and it's impacts. THere is also a lot of positive science and economic information coming out as cannabis becomes the leader in industry growth in USA according to Forbes .

In a nut shell there are a pros and cons to consider ,some being anecdotal and unscientific, residual propaganda from years of prohibition based on on special interests and agendas. But mostly the communities should be fully aware of how regs play out in the state of Alaska before being allowed to opt out. Economic and social impacts of opting out may not be as desirable as some community leaders have been led to believe. As previously mentioned, Marijuana has been classified as a schedule 1, dangerous substance for many years with no real science behind the myths of potential harm to brain growth in young adults and possible suicide.

Much of the time ' Marijuana' , which is a much scarier name than Cannabis, has been labeled as a harmful drug when referenced in the term 'drugs and alcohol use in our community" when the real culprits are Alcohol and inhalant abuse as well as pharmaceutical pain killers. I feel that some of the fear of 'Marijuana' instilled in the minds of communities that have been ravaged by alcohol abuse of may influence local option decisions. I am not condoning abuse of any kind of substance as we know that inhaling gasoline leads to death as well, yet gasoline has never been banned by local option.

I feel that the local option language was inserted into the MJ initiative for political reasons . I feel that local option is a good thing to protect democratic community values , however for the reasons stated I do not feel that communities should jump into MJ local option until they are fully educated and aware of the impacts of opting out.

Some of these impacts may include loss of economic benefits of legalizing MJ trade in the community. Loss off freedom and being labeled a s a criminal for folks that choose to continue to blackmarket MJ as supply and demand continues to offer financial windfalls. Loss of integrity for local options as MJ use is labeled or villainized along more harmful substance abuses. Financial burden of law enforcement and judicial procedure used to enforce local MJ option laws. Misguided science and facts surrounding MJ use and medicinal potential for a long list of common health ailments.

Thanks for the chance to comment on any ongoing MJ sessions off the MCB.

Robin Thomas

Rural Alaskan

May 30, 2015

Dear Sirs,

Considering the legitimacy of industrial Hemp research in the United States,
provided the cultivating of hemp is allowed under the laws of the state,
merely by more clearly defining what is 'marijuana', or 'Cannabis', or 'Cannabis Sativa L.' in the new proposed
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Regulations Regarding Marijuana and Local Options"

I propose: "Cannabis under this regulation contains over .3% THC.
Cannabis containing under .3% THC are covered under other regulation and are legal for growing under research protocols exploring future commercial potential."

By not defining low THC Cannabis plants and high THC Cannabis plants, regulations are arbitrary and capricious.

Please see the Library of Congress record for the US Congress 2014 Bill Summary:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery?%26dbname=cp113%26r_n=hr333.113%26sel=TOC_834691

All the best,
Brian J Grenier

May 25, 2015

1. A municipality or village may opt out, or opt in, based on a vote, or by ordinance passed by a city council or assembly. Keeping the actions of our current State Legislature in mind, members of a city council or assembly may be elected on other issues, and then once elected, this handful of individuals could pass an ordinance to opt out, or opt in, and lock that municipality or village into their (the council or assembly’s) position for 24 months, even though the ordinance may be against the wishes of a majority of their constituents. I suggest that only a vote by the people make it possible to opt out, or opt in, to prevent the possibility of being held hostage by the views of the handful of their elected officials.

2. Voters, or an ordinance passed by a city council or assembly, may “prohibit the importation for sale of marijuana and marijuana products…” Later in the same sentence in 3 AAC 306.240(a) it continues that “…a person…may not knowingly send, transport , or bring marijuana or marijuana products into the municipality or established village.” The words “for sale” have disappeared from that part of the sentence. Does this mean “personal use” is banned also in that municipality or village? I hope not. Or else “personal use” needs to be clearly specified in the vote or ordinance.

-Bill Hearn

May 25, 2015

I would like to start by thanking the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and the State of Alaska, for taking the time to regulate marijuana responsibly and also taking the time consider my inquiries. As I know time is a valuable asset I would like to state that it is not my intent to hassle the ABC Board on Marijuana Regulations, rather my intent is to request these questions be addressed in the next Board meeting. The questions are as follows:

1. Does the Board feel a licensed marijuana cultivation facility should be allowed to operated in a person's home in a residential zone, or will it be mandatory to operate out of a commercial area?

2. Does the Board feel it will be necessary to not allow a single business, corporation, or person to hold both a marijuana cultivation license and a marijuana retail license, in order to prevent a monopoly on the market?

Again I would like to thank you and the Board for your consideration of these topics.

Respectfully,

Derrick Kahler

May 24, 2015

I am writing regarding the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board proposal to adopt regulation changes in Title 3 of the Alaska Administrative Code, dealing with local option regulations and definitions relating to marijuana and marijuana establishments.
Reference MJ Regulations Set 1 Final .PDF

1. Page 5 paragraph title; 3 AAC 306.240. Prohibition of importation or purchase after election. In (a) it states, “If a majority of the voters vote to prohibit the importation for sale of marijuana and marijuana products under 3 AAC 306.200(a)(4) or (b)(3), or if the assembly or city council passes an ordinance to the same effect, a person, beginning on the first day of the month following certification of the results of the election, may not knowingly send, transport, or bring marijuana or marijuana products into the municipality or established village.”
On page 1 paragraph title; 3 AAC 306.200 Local Options, (4) states, “the sale or importation for sale of marijuana and marijuana products”.

There seems to be a disconnect between these two synonymous regulatory changes in that on page 5 the verbiage should be changed to state the same as on page 1 allowing importation but NOT importation for sales. The wording on page 5 makes illegal ANY importation from other municipalities. IE, if Palmer opts out, people who live in Palmer are unable to legally drive to Wasilla to purchase their medicine for home use.
I would like to see the wording on page 5 changed to reflect the wording on page 1 and anywhere else in the document so as not to cause the illegal importation of marijuana or marijuana products for personal use.

2. Page 6 and 7 paragraph title; 3 AAC 306.260. Licensing after prohibition on sale except in premises operated by municipality.
I am against any governing body becoming direct competition with the public sector.

3. Multiple pages throughout the document aforementioned. For reference, please use page 1; paragraph title; 3 AAC 306.200. Local Options. Number (3) states, “the sale of marijuana and marijuana products except on premises operated by the municipality under a retail marijuana license; or”….
With my comment of number 2 above, I also feel that if the people or the assembly of a municipality, community, unincorporated borough or village elect to opt out, this should reflect on any and all marijuana and marijuana product sales and operations.

-Allen Cornelison

May 22, 2015

questions and comments

Under 3 AAC 306.

Prohibition of importation or purchase after election

may not knowingly send, transport, or bring marijuana or marijuana products

into the municipality or established village.

How far does this reach?

Would it halt someone from transporting marijuana or marijuana products to be sold or tested from Anchorage through Kenai to Homer, If Kenai or Soldotna decides to place a prohibition on Marijuana?

“marijuana plant” means a living organism of genus Cannabis capable of absorbing water and inorganic substances through its roots, and synthesizing nutrients in its leaves by photosynthesis;

This definition includes hemp and should be changed.

hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. Hemp is a weed that will not get you high or buzzed, but has a great many uses that people are itching to get to try and use.

3 AAC 306.990. Definitions.(a) In AS 17.38

Definitions

This is in direct opposition of the language of the initiative.

Line C.(1) “assist” does not include. Further define “assist”

If I rent an apartment for you to live in I have assisted you in your housing needs.

If I rent you a space to grow your marijuana plants I have assisted you in your gardening needs.

Could I be considered growing your plants for you if you grow them on my land or in my grow box or foil tent?

The initiative states Sec. 17.38.030

Restrictions on personal cultivation, penalty

3. Marijuana cultivation may only occur on property lawfully in possession of the cultivator or with the consent of the person in lawful possession of the property

Line C under 3AAC 306.990 of the definitions is in direct opposition of the initiative.

C. growing marijuana plants for another person in a place other than that other person's residence;

Under line (2) “personal cultivation” does not include

C. growing marijuana plants for another person in a place other than that other person's residence.

This again is in direct opposition of the language of the initiative

The initiative states Sec. 17.38.030.

Restrictions on personal cultivation, penalty.

Marijuana cultivation may only occur on property lawfully in possession of the cultivator or with the consent of the person in lawful possession of the property

Now I have to ask, why did you add a persons “person's residence”? To the end of the line growing marijuana plants for another person in a place other than that other person's residence;

I rented for 15 years and that is so insulting to me, its like the government is saying, you are not enough of a citizen, by adding “person's residence” The government is saying I cant grow because I don't own and I have to Buy from somewhere.

The government is saying I should not have the same rights and freedoms as a homeowner.

Can you imagine telling me I could brew beer at a buddies or on a space I rented because it was not my residence, because I am not a homeowner I have to buy it?

I know the language is poor but the intent of this initiative is clear, please respect the voter when you are making the regulations.

Carrie Harris

May 21, 2015

I think one part of “3 AAC 306.250. Effect on licenses of restriction on sale.” should be changed, or taken out. It says, “or in the unincorporated area within ten miles of the boundaries of the municipality, or within the perimeter of the established village.” I think that wording is a bad idea, because it adversely affects those who are near, but not a part of, that municipality. They are not inside the boundaries of the municipality, so they do not qualify to vote on the matter, but they will then be forced to abide by a decision made where they had no representation. Of course that goes against everything our country and its system stand for.

Another thing I would ask you to consider is having some way for delivery drivers to legally transport larger amounts of marijuana, so they can deliver to multiple customers at a time, making their trips more efficient on gas, time, effort, and money. Some people may just “want” to have it delivered, but others who use it medically may need to have it delivered for a variety of reasons. They may really appreciate an option that does not rely solely on family members or friends.

Well, those are two things I noticed right away.

A thought/question:
The Marijuana Control Board, currently being formed, is being set in place to handle these kinds of issues and any others that arise, right? It may be a good idea to let them come into existence, then let them take care of these matters and others like them.

I do not bring this up as a matter of disrespect in any way. I believe the ABC’s contributions have been very helpful and necessary. It’s just that now we are putting together the Marijuana Control Board and I was thinking maybe the rest of the things should be handled by them, as it is their purpose for existing.

Sincerely,
Mystiek Lockery

May 21, 2015

I cannot find the link to the full text of the proposed changes on this website. However, if the article in the ADN dated Thursday, May 21, 2015 is correct, then limiting a household to 6 plants will be practically impossible to adhere to, since when one starts with seeds, you have to grow more than 6 to weed out the males. Plus, if one wants to grow one's own medicine, clones need to be taken to ensure timely replacement of harvested plants. These clones take time to grow to a size usable for pain relief, whether in edibles or as smoke. 6 plants just won't do it. A limit of 12 plants would be more useful for those of us growing our own medicine.

Carol Thompson

May 21, 2015

We have another set of questions related to the local option marijuana business regulations. How does the section in the proposed regulations on procedure for local option election (AAC 306.230) relate to an application for a petition under AS 29.26.110 for example, if a petition requests that the Borough for example, enact an ordinance to ban marijuana businesses. This provision requires a smaller number of residents to sign the petition. A second question relates to zoning powers and impact on Marijuana businesses, would the Borough be able to ban businesses simply through the passage of a zoning ordinance that prohibits the uses in most, if not all zoning classifications. I’m not trying to play devil’s advocate here, but the Borough Attorney and I are very curious to how this regulation interacts with other statutes and local government powers.

Thank you

Chris French

May 21, 2015

I wish to submit comments on the proposed marijuana regulations. Please accept this e-mail as my first set of comments.

I am opposed to the concept of local option, and do not believe there should be a local option. There is a major problem with the bootlegging of alcohol in Alaska which exists only due to local option. Local option has failed to keep alcohol out of dry communities, has resulted in uncontrolled sales to all persons of any age, has made large profits for bootleggers, and has created an entire new class of criminals. The only people who have benefited from local option are law enforcement personnel because it has created a group of people for law enforcement to pursue, prosecute, and lock up. If Alaska had any common sense, it would repeal local option.

Local option for marijuana presents the same problems as alcohol only in spades since marijuana is easier to conceal and use harder to detect. We voted to legalize marijuana in part to get rid of a victimless crime. You propose to ignore that vote and create a new class of criminals. It would be a mistake which should not be enacted.

James Friderici

Willow, Alaska

May 21, 2015

I spoke to Cynthia Franklin about two weeks ago on the regulations under development at that time and she told me that the local option for municipal ordinance would have to be done by each municipality within a Borough, and not by the Borough for the entire area. The proposed regulations do not clearly point this out or at least it is unclear to me. Is that the intent of these regulations?

Thank you

Chris French

May 21, 2015

I had heard earlier that Felons would not be able to get license to sell. I would like that to be changed to only with drug related felonies. Most felons have a hard enough time to get work in this state esp. since juvenal records are kept listed. I think that is appalling and most states do not do this. who do we contact to lobby for this?

Maureen

May 21, 2015

The definition of "possession" as applied collectively is ridiculous. Under these standards if you and I are sitting at a table and I put a $100 bill on the table then everyone in the room is in "possession" of my $100 bill. Because they know it is there they potentially COULD MAYBE be in control of my $100 bill, so are therefore in "possession" of what is in reality, and by any rational basis in law, MY $100 bill, not anyone else's unless I give it to them. The people voted for 6 plants per person. This rule defines a collective group and arbitrarily limits the rights in those they assign to a given collective group (a household as they define it) in distinction to historic application of other rights which always apply to individuals. This proposes to allow different rights for another randomly defined collective (neighbors for example). Rights are individual in this country, not collective. You do not become less of a citizen due all the rights of a citizen, including the right to grow pot, and due process just because you are a room mate, a spouse, life partner, or an adult child living at home. You should still retain the rights to equal protections, rights against illegal search and seizure, etc. as any other individual.

Anonymous

May 20, 2015

Is there something in writing making it a crime if someone of legal age distributes to a minor? There should be.

Anonymous

May 20, 2015

I would like to make some comments on the proposed regulations regarding marijuana and local option.

I am amused and befuddled by the process to establish regulations regarding the regulated sale and use of marijuana. Marijuana has been in many ways, legal to use and to possess for the better part of the last 40 years...so its not some new thing by any means. What the ABC is doing is regulating the production and distribution...again..not something brand new . The reefer madness demonstrated by certain legislators was surreal. The past few months have shown that the green community is, with but a few exceptions, overwhelming responsible, but the regulatory process does not seem to recognize that.

I understand that the ABC is attempting to craft legislation that complies with both the spirit and the letter of the initiative passed last November.

My specific comments relate to the portion dealing with possession, particularly the interpretation of "6 plants per person" rule in the law. I think the interpretation of that to mean "6 per household" is wrong,

If one of the goals is to reduce unregulated . production and sale, I would to think the ABC would want encourage and not inhibit growing it at home, and to do so would interpret that phrase in the light most favorable to home growers. Six plants per adult would be more realistic, and would comply with the language and the intent of the law. I certainly wouldn't want to start my seed tomato crop with only six plants...and if I were growing cannabis I would want to start with as many sprouts as we legally could. At my house that would be 12 under the "6 per person" portion of the law.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Donald H Miller

May 20, 2015

I have a concern about possession.

Now that marijuana is legal, no amount of possession should be criminalized, with the exception of marijuana imported into this state.

The one ounce rule, as I understand it, is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. If six people in a car all go to the weed store and buy an ounce, all should be legal. If one person buys weeds for his invalid mother (as if he were buying a bottle of wine for her), and he buys an ounce for himself, he should not be criminalized for having over one ounce.

The 'one ounce' rule also conflicts with the regulation that says a pot grower can keep as much of his cannabis that he grows. So if he has 50 pounds of his own weed in the freezer, that conflicts with the one ounce rule.

The term "one ounce" is vague and arbitrary. Does this include stems, seeds and other parts of the plant that are normally not consumed? What about the weight of the container?

Alaskans have spoken. We want weed regulated like alcohol. We do not want it criminalized. We want less regulations, not more.

Please eliminate all regulations which criminalize any possession of any amount of weed grown in Alaska.

Thank you.

T.J. Duffy

May 20, 2015

I support your approach on mirroring marijuana rules and regulations with statutes and regulations for liquor establishments.

I would add that marijuana consumption and use laws, should also mirror those of alcohol consumption i.e. public consumption and use.

thnx

Bill Gregory

May 20, 2015

What is the difference if it's legal about how many plants you grow. My God, if a person is sick you need several different kinds to get thru your day. Problem is no one knows this that is used to Alcohol. It takes at least 4 months from seed just to harvest a plant. Then it takes an additional 4 to 8 weeks to cure it before you can use it. That is for smoking or medical purposes. Also, there is a new and promising method of juicing this plant and for that you need way more than 24 plants to keep up with the pruning and juicing of the plant. BTW: You can't get high or even feel any effects of the thc a. It only gets you high if you heat it up. If you need some more input let me know and I'm more than happy to assist you in your endeavors to get this done. I am well informed with most of the current research that is being done and some that has been done. They are currently finding that this plant has excellent medicinal properties and finally it's being discovered. Basically this plant is harmless and people that use it on a regular basis do not have major problems or any problems with life. You can not OD on it, but you can OD on Alcohol and die. There has never been one case of Over Dose with Marijuana. Also, it's not that easy to grow and it costs a lot of money to do it right. You need medical grow houses first and those should be started or allowed to start as soon as possible. It will be 6 to 8 months before that Marijuana will be ready for market and some can take even longer. This Marijuana needs to be grown in a clean room environment and then sent out to a lab to check for mold, bugs and possibly the wrong hydro chemicals used to grow it. If you would like the whole growing process from seed to harvest to curing, I would be glad to discuss that with you. There need to be kitchens set up for Medical use and the focus should be on the medical aspects of this plant first. As even this process is good for the rec user. So both types of users can benefit from this type of growing and processing. You need to keep the amateurs from getting licenses and you also need to not allow those that are involved in selling this product now. Like the likes of Rocky and his illegal business. I can't believe you still letting this person conduct business with marijuana sales.

Robert Davis

May 20, 2015

As the regulations undergo processing, I understand that people may possess and use the substance in their household. However, does this pertain to apartment complexes as well? If so, since the tenant of one apartment may partake in the recreation use of it, are there regulations for this, as it may negatively affect their other neighbors (i.e. fumes/smell, nausea from the fumes/smell, allergies, under age children in other households, etc.)? Are there any current or up-coming regulations to situations such as these? If so, what are they? If not, what will they be? Will there be any kinds of regulations for any (small or large) apartment complexes as it may affect all neighboring tenants?

Valerie Sours

May 20, 2015

I am a bit concerned about the policies regarding getting a DUI while under the influence of marijuana. Is there a legal limit for THC blood content as there is on blood alcohol content, like above a 0.08 and you get a DUI for alcohol but what will there be for marijuana? Is there a sure way to test for impairment on the spot? What if the person smoked that day and drove later on in the day when they are not high anymore, will the blood THC levels reflect that the person is not under the influence anymore? Will there be a separate ticket for smoking and driving, a DUI and the repercussions of a DUI seem too harsh to apply to a person who has only smoked a little and is okay to drive.

Emily R. Haas

May 20, 2015

Can't find actual definitions anywhere. Number of plants must be 6 per person, as per initiative. Not, 6 per household, this is not what we voted and approved.

Greg Jurisich

May 20, 2015

Public comment in regards to 3AAC 306.200

I notice here that there are four license types listed; Marijuana cultivation facility, Marijuana products manufacturing facility, Marijuana testing facility, and Marijuana retail facility. During preliminary discussions there was talk of a "Boutique" growers license. This was a very good idea because it would give the state the ability so see which entry level growers could produce product and revenue without risking them starting with a large tier grow and not delivering on the promised revenue for the state. Its also a good option because there are lots of people out there whom dont desire to have a large grow operation....just something small and simple to put food on the table and some money in the bank.

I hope this small grow license / small grow tier (50) is included in the final language of the marijuana regulations.

Public comment in regards to 3 AAC 306.260

I strongly object to this section of the proposed regulations. Ballot measure 2 contains no language at all that government run / owned dispensaries would even be considered as a possibility. The people of Alaska did not vote yes on Ballot Measure 2 so they could have government owned dispensaries. The people voted yes on Ballot Measure 2 so they could have the opportunely for Alaskan citizens to open, operate and benefit from these businesses in the free market.

Not to mention that government run dispensaries will do nothing more than fuel the black market...which legalization was supposed to fix. This whole section "3 AAC 306.260" should be removed.

Sincerely,

Steve Gossman

May 20, 2015

Part of these proposed regulations would violate an individual"s constitutional rights, Ravin vs state of AK. This could cost the State $ in law suits. Remove the parts restricting an individual's right to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal use.

Greg Jurisich

May 20, 2015

This comment relates to 3 AAC 306.240: The law allows for a person to cultivate a certain number of marijuana plants in their home. There should be clarifying language that a person is allowed to import marijuana seeds into a locality enacting a local option for the strict purposes of personal cultivation. Failure to explicitly state this could lead to a de facto ban on personal cultivation which would be in conflict with the law.

Anonymous

May 20, 2015

It is disturbing to see that "3 AAC 306.240. Prohibition of importation or purchase after election" prohibits not only importation of marijuana products for sale, but also importation of marijuana products for personal use, including medical marijuana.

Joe Mason

May 19, 2015

To legalize marijuana by

popular vote?

Proposition 2 already been voted.

People of Alaska had already expressed third opinion by voting.

These measures are unnecessary and they are in Violation of The marijuana Control Board. The members haven't even been seated. And the governor has under House Bill 123 as written in To law.

All that should be scrapped.

It's a Clear attack against marijuana.

And the person that thought this up should be fired.

Wasting taxpayers money, for this persons own personal feelings on the matter.

Clearly overstepping their hand & boundaries.

Just undermined the

marijuana control board right there.

I think it's a slap, in the face to the governor.

Congratulations.

That 17-year-old girl that ran over a father of two because; She was drunk. She's getting a slap on the wrist. Possibly a year in prison with a suspended sentence. Possibly a year in prison. No persons have been arrested for giving her alcohol.

Maybe you should, get to work and reinforcing the alcohol law.

Only if we had alcohol beverage control board that could stop.

the madness of drunken alcoholic rich lawyer children running around.

Somehow as a taxpayer; I feel cheated.

Robert

May 19, 2015

Thank you for the e-mail concerning proposed changes.

Section 2 says:

(2) Definitions are proposed to be adopted, including the following:

Definitions of the terms “assist”, “personal cultivation”, “adulterated food or drink product”, “edible marijuana product”, “licensed premises”, “local governing body”, “marijuana concentrate”, “marijuana product”, “marijuana plant”, and “possess”.

but no where in the e-mail does it say what the definitions are to be. There is no way for anyone to know if the proposed changes are going to affect them if that element is unknown. Can you resend the e-mails to people and include what the definitions are to be?

Thank you.

Mystiek Lockery

Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Alcohol & Marijuana Control Office

Marijuana Control Board

Marijuana Regulations Public Commentary

Public Comments on Draft Set #1

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

Marijuana Control Board

Other AMCO Resources

Mission Statement

Hours of Operation

Anchorage

Mailing/Physical Address