Rep. Brian DelGrosso,
R-Loveland
Rep. Daniel Kagan
D-Cherry Hills Village
Whether Colorado aims to ban or regulate powdered alcohol — or both — seemed almost beside the point in the Colorado House of Representatives Wednesday morning. Instead, it was a skirmish only the Merriam brothers and Noah Webster could love, because it boiled down to the definition of words on paper.
The question was whether a bill originally aimed at banning powdered alcohol, at least temporarily, still should have that title when the Senate rewrote it to make it more of a bill about regulation and taxes.
That matters, say House Democrats, who supported the Republican-sponsored bill on Jan. 29, before Senate Republicans amended it. The law states the bill’s content must match its title.
The powdered alcohol ban bill just got a unanimous voice vote in the House.
— Joey Bunch (@joeybunch)
Keep in mind powdered alcohol still hasn’t been approved by the U,S, Food and Drug Administration. Colorado’s ban would apply in the interim between approval and state regulations can be drawn up for the product being developed under the brand name Palcohol.
“I don’t have a strong feeling about the policy in this bill, but I do have a strong feeling about the Constitution of Colorado,” said Rep. Daniel Kagan, a lawyer who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.
He read aloud from the state Constitution: “If any subject shall be embraced in any act that shall not be embraced in the title, such act shall be void.”
He opined, “If this bill passes in this form it will be argued by opponents of the is measure that the subject is not expressed in the title, which is clearly calling for a ban.
“… I don’t know if it’s a good bill or a bad bill, but it will be argued that it’s an unconstitutional bill.”
Rep. Justin Everett, R-Littleton, also a lawyer, said the title says “concerning a ban.”
“‘Concerning’ — so right now this is not authorized under federal law, and this bill specifically states that when it’s authorized under federal law it will be regulated,” Everett said.
Then he called out House Democrats. Everett pointed out not a single Democrat voted against the amended bill when the Senate passed it 28-7 on Monday, where it was co-sponsored by Nancy Todd, a Democrat from Aurora. Staunch conservative Sen. Vicki Marble of Fort Collins was among the Republicans who opposed it.
“I’m looking forward to all of you on that side voting with Vicki Marble,” Everett joked, referring to the Democrats seated at his left.
The last line of the bill’s summary states, “If the federal Food and Drug Administration alcohol and tobacco tax and trade bureau approves the use of powdered alcohol and the state enacts liquor enforcement division in the Department of Revenue, also referred to as the “state licensing authority,” establishes and implements a mechanism for regulating powdered alcohol, the prohibition is repealed.”
House Republican leader Brian DelGrosso of Loveland said the Senate’s rewrite didn’t change the original intent of the bill.
“This bill was never a permanent ban on powdered alcohol, never was,” he said. “… The premise was that if it passes in Washington, D.C, and it becomes a product that’s legal to be sold out there on the market, the Department of Revenue, liquor enforcement, cannot under current rules regulate it, because it is a powdered alcohol, and liquor enforcement enforces regulations on liquid alcohol.
“So that would mean that if it becomes legal at the federal level, 7-Eleven could theoretically sell this to 15-year-olds.”
Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp said the Senate had thrown the “ban” language into confusion, because clouding the original temporary ban could mean there’s no ban at all or there’s a permanent ban.
“No, there is not a ban on it,” replied Rep. JoAnn Windholz, R-Commerce City, .
”‹Confused? A lot of House members were Wednesday morning, judging from questions, prompting House Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst of Boulder to move to put off a vote on the bill until Friday to give representatives more time to sort it out.
Even that didn’t go easy. House members deadlocked 32-32 (with Rep. John Buckner, D-Aurora, out with an excused absence), before leaving the voting machine open long enough for two members to change their votes to postpone the vote.
The updated summary of states:
A BILL FOR AN ACT
CONCERNING A BAN ON POWDERED ALCOHOL.
The bill prohibits the use, possession, sale, purchase, transfer, or manufacture of powdered alcohol. A person who violates the prohibition commits a class 2 misdemeanor.
Research hospitals, educational institutions, and pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies conducting bona fide research are excluded from the prohibition. If the federal Food and Drug Administration alcohol and tobacco tax and trade bureau approves the use of powdered
alcohol and the state enacts liquor enforcement division in the department of revenue, also referred to as the “state licensing authority,” establishes and implements a mechanism for regulating powdered alcohol, the prohibition is repealed.
