Alaska's highest court to hear marijuana case
Published Thursday, March 20, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU -- Alaska's highest court was expected to look at issues concerning the right of Alaskans to possess small amounts of marijuana in their homes.
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments Thursday in Juneau.
In May 2006, the Alaska Legislature revived a law that would criminalize adults possessing small amounts of marijuana in their homes.
The law earlier had been struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. The ACLU argues that the state constitution and its privacy provisions protect adults who use marijuana in their homes.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
We should just legalize it and get rid of all this BS. I mean, as it was recently pointed out to me, there are only 7 people incarcerated in the entire state for possession. So, once again we're just wasting time and money...
Coffee is more of a drug than marijuana. We as Alaskans could be running our vehicles from hemp and making many more textiles. Embrace the herb like all others that grow on this lonely planet.
Cars put out polution that I unwillingly breath. Agriculture, mining, and industry contribute wastes that I unwillingly place in my body. There are positive things that can be said of those activities but we have little choice in our exposure to the detrimental effects. In fact if you try to decrease or limit the bad aspects a person can be demonized as a communist, tree hugger, anti-development, maybe even a democrat. Why are we willing to give business more freedoms than individuals? Even when you are in your own home not sending your waste to your neighbors.
Marijuana cannot be legalized because it will cut into the profits of the Pharmaceutical and Alcohol industy's. With the Conflict of Interest and Collusion challenged Republican and Democratic Legislators selling their votes to the highest bidders. Who do you think will give them the most money? The average pot smoker off the street or the Pharmacy and Alcohol conglomerates?
I see people in the emergency room a lot because of alcohol, cocaine and now meth.. Never for marijuana.
I recently read that America has become the Incarceration Nation--the ratio of those imprisoned to the general population is higher here than anywhere else on earth. This shameful statistic is in part caused by the ridiculous War On (some people who do certain) Drugs," which provides a steady stream of fodder for the prison industry (which is what it has become).
The failure of prohibition has already been well documented with regard to alcohol, and it escapes me why anyone would think it could be a viable solution for cannabis, a much safer substance. This ill advised strategey merely creates a lucrative black market resulting in increased violent crime. It also funnels productive and otherwise law-abiding citizens into an already overburdened criminal justice system, exposing them to malevolent influences and diverting resources that could certainly be better employed.
The Alaska Supreme Court justices have already slapped this down a couple of times; hopefully they are wise enough to do it again.
I think smoking marijuana is a dumb thing to do. That being said, I agree with Newsreader.
Dana - hey thanks!
I did want to point out that you may feel that smoking marijuana is a dumb thing to do, but in my experience is doesn't make you dumb (like all those wonderful PSA's seem to say).
When I took Advanced Calculus (the toughest class required for a Bachelors Degree in Math), I smoked with 9 out of 13 students.
Totally accurate. I Myself achieved similiar academic success and started smoking pot when I was 14, 40 years ago. Mans law cannot supercede gods commands. Genesis 1:29
Legalize it
Alcohol is worse than weed-- and alcohol it is legal. Legalize marijuana and stop wasting time and money on prosecuting innocent people.
Tobacco is just as harmful, if not more, than marijuana. The difference is, the governments aren't making billions in taxes off it.
Marijuana is just too easy to grow for them to control. At least this way, they have job security and can make some money back in seizures of SUSPECTED drug money and property impounds.
I've had over $15,000 worth of growing equipment stolen from me by the troopers in my life. Never been charged with a single thing. They break into your house, steal your stuff, and you never hear from them again. If I had a bit more money for lawyers fees, I'd have sued them for theft of my property.
Some of the impetus behind this whole bogus and interminable "War on Drugs" is the fact that enforcement agencies use it to unconstitutionally seize assets and enrich themselves, due process be damned. This is an income stream they are reluctant to interrupt, and in the meantime, society pays the freight not only for imprisoning the "offenders," but for the consequences that are visited on their families (who often must go on welfare to survive the loss of income that these "dangerous criminals" had been providing through their own honest labor).
Research into the history of marijuana prohibition reveals that these policies were developed largely to persecute blacks and other minorities. William Randolph Hearst also played a major yellow-journalism role in order to protect his vast timber holdings from competition from cheap and renewable hemp used in the manufacture of paper. It's a sordid story.
The authorities don't seem to have a problem forcing medications like fluoride on the populace, but God forbid that some poor cancer patient would try to alleviate his suffering with a natural herb that is far less harmful than most pharmaceuticals. Sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland.
Though there may be a small number of inmates in Alaskan prisons because of marijuana possession, there are a huge number who have had their probation violated because they've smoked grass. This is stupid and immensely expensive. Hopefully the Supremes will help sort this out.
Here's what I'm talking about (from http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj004.htm - read the rest of it for some interesting history):
"1936 - 1938: William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire fuels a tabloid journalism propaganda campaign against marijuana. Articles with headlines such as Marihuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days; Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust create terror of the killer weed from Mexico.
Through his relentless misinformation campaign, Hearst is credited with bringing the word marijuana into the English language. In addition to fueling racist attitudes toward Hispanics, Hearst papers run articles about marijuana-crazed negroes raping white women and playing voodoo-satanic jazz music.
Driven insane by marijuana, these blacks -- according to accounts in Hearst-owned newspapers -- dared to step on white men's shadows, look white people directly in the eye for more than three seconds, and even laugh out loud at white people. For shame!"
Once upon a time in this country, in order to charge a person with a serious crime, there needed to be a clearly identifiable victim. The new and improved justice system, seeing a future industry in enforcement, along with those who are prone to minding others' business for them, saw fit to change that when we left common law in the rear-view mirror.
Carl Sagan was a daily smoker of cannabis. Many other brilliant scholars were as well.
While there may not be many persons actually incarcerated in Alaska strictly for cannabis possession, the number of citations issued in Alaska for its possession, per capita, scores as being one of the highest in the nation. And the processing of citations, court hearings, public defenders' attorney fees, prosecutors' wages, judges' salaries, probation officers' salaries, urine testing and other intrusive aspects of this 'enforcement' are -NOT- free. Your oil dollars are paying for a whole lot of it.
And the only thing that prohibition has ever achieved is to provide employment for enforcement folks who are often more sociopathic than the dealers, a lucrative market for the black marketeers, and an increase in violence, as disputes of the black market variety rarely involve being settled in small claims court or by calling the local constabulary.
Wanna' end the majority of violence in the drug trade, home invasions, etc.?? LEGALIZE IT!!
Want some respect to return toward the 'justice system,'and law enforcement in general, in re. to the current bogus claims of self-determination, personal responsibility, freedom, liberty etc.? Then LEGALIZE IT!!
Want to continue fueling unregulated markets, the associated turf wars and violence, and inflated markets for a plant, while shovelling tax dollars at a problem that has never been successfully affected, long-term, by law enforcement? Continue the criminalization of cannabis and its mostly peaceful users..
It's -really- that simple.
The proposition to legalize marijuana was overwhelmingly voted down by Alaskans in 2000, and for good reason. We don't need people high on drugs or alcohol endangering others. Enforcement is aimed at controlling the abuse of potentially harmful substances. Alcohol may more dangerous than marijuana; therefore, why not ban alcohol, instead of trying to legalize both. Whether Prohibition worked is open to debate. Alcohol bans are still in effect in some parts of the country, including rural Alaska. Policing oneself may be the best defense against marijuana abuse, but legalizing drugs is not the answer.
alaska_joe -
It was voted down for the "good reason(s)" that people are afraid of what they don't understand and tend to believe the BS party line that is fed them - Americans have been brainwashed by big business again - just look at some of the previous posts and do some research on your own before you spout off the party line. We have a huge propaganda machine at work in America that vilifies this harmless (even beneficial) drug.
In this case, the enforcement is NOT focused on the abuse of the drug - it is focused on the USE of the drug. There is a very distinct difference.
I thought I was supposed to be free in this country. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? Well, this makes me happy! What right do you have to take away my happiness? My marijuana use has never put anyone at risk and it never will.
Finally, I have no idea what rock you just crawled out of when you try to foist the rubbish "Whether Prohibition worked is open to debate". That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on here - and there's been A LOT of them...
Thanks, alaska_joe! I appreciate you putting forth a fair and balanced opinion on this topic. I do not wish to see marijuana or any other illegal drug legalized either.
Runnynoze, your scripture reference does not concern smoking weed. It had to do with food...and that before the Fall.
Here's another verse for you:
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
That's why you should not put harmful substances into your body.
Prohibition's "success" depends on how one defines the word. I believe that the concensus is that the 18th amendment to the constitution did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption. But it simultaneously increased the level of organized crime and disrespect for the law to a level which was deemed too costly, so this experiment in social engineering was abandoned as a failure because the cure proved worse than the disease.
The difference between alcohol and cannabis is that our culture was already familiar with the alcohol and its effects, whereas marijuana was a "new" drug, subject to demonization by the likes of Hearst and Harry Anslinger. People remain abysmally ignorant about it to this day, and many still harbor a "Reefer Madness" mentality. But it doesn't take much research to learn that the effects of alcohol, both physical and social, are far more harmful than those of the herb. I would encourage the sheep who uncritically swallow the government's propaganda on this issue to do a bit of independent investigation.
Prohibition of alcohol didn't work well, and prohibition of marijuana isn't working any better.
Please, do not spout your biblical quotes to support your antiquated ridiculous views.
"though shall not suffer a witch to live" - shall we now kill all Wiccans and pagans?
"spare the rod spoil the child" - I suppose that you would have us beating our children again
I could go on, but my scripture memory is fading... I'm sure there's good stuff in their about killing homosexuals, about not allowing other religions, sacrificing specific parts of animals (and not others). It also full of all kinds of wonderful incest, rape, and, of course, an overwhelming number of wars, murders, and deaths all in god's name...
So, please, don't even start. Get a little more modern info, ok? Not something that was written in man's infancy by people that had intellects only slightly more advanced than that of our grade schoolers of today.
It is exactly this mentality that I was referring to in my last post - accepting the drivel that was feed to you and never even learning the ability to have independent critical thought of your own.
*steps off soapbox*
State v Ravin - 1975 - it is a constitutional issue, based on article 22 of the state constitution. They decided then that if all they think you are doing is smoking it in your own home, they do not have the right to invade your privacy. Later, the 1991 vote against it was overturned on the same basis. That's 31 years of case law so far.
"That's why you should not put harmful substances into your body."
So should we make trans-fats illegal too? What people do to their own bodies is their business, not the government's, and what harms one may help another. The bible may be a great document, but we are not a theocracy and it only governs those who choose to submit to it personally. Laws already exist to police behavior that is harmful to others; there is no need for Big Brother to peer into our minds and impede our cognitive liberty. My hope is that this legislation goes the way of the Huckabee campaign for president.
Regardless of what they decide here (or in any other state), Marijuana remains on the DEA's Schedule I for drugs that have high abuse potential and have no accepted medicinal use in the US. That means that whilest the state and local police may leave you alone, the feds will still have the laws to bust you.
Chris - good point; however the Feds don't get involved until there is more than 100 plants or $100,000 cash. At which point, you aren't going for personal use anymore. At least I can see a slight bit of reason in that part... [Although I still think we should legalize it completely and regulate it]
"That's why you should not put harmful substances into your body."
Didnt Jesus turn water into wine? *scratches head*
Marijuana makes me sick. However, if alchohol and tobacco are legal, why not pot? Geez, the pot smokers aren't even asking to take it out of their homes like the tobacco addicts. (referencing the letter to the editor titled "smoking section") Lets spend Alaska's dollar focusing on our major problems like Drunk driving. (Oddly enough generated by a LEGAL substance) Just my thoughts...
Those that want to smoke pot already do, whether legal or not. Some people just can't stand it if they think someone might be enjoying something more than they might. As if they are somehow smarter, and 'know' what is good for others. If they really cared about crime, health, etc, there would be no legal tobacco or alcohol. Hypocrites for sure. You should be ashamed.
Grow up guys, I am most likely older than most of you, and even though a pot smoker, it is obvious to me which of you are more stupid than me. I think smoking a few joints just might make you a little smarter, but then again, that would have to open your mind a bit, and it sounds like something you have never done before. I would be embarrassed to share some of your ignorant views. What is so funny, is you think you know what is right. But then again, I suppose you think you know what is right about religions too. You all have some growing up to do.
Ravin limited State authority via Article I, Section XXII. "The right of the People to privacy shall not be infringed.."
The Fed's commerce clause has exceeded its original intent, according to Justice Clarence Thomas in the Raich case.
Ravin (1975) disallowed sale of cannabis. The 4-ounce limit was codified by the legislature, & took effect March, 1983.
No sales. No commerce. The Feds have no ethical business getting involved in local law enforcement until trafficking is established.
But the Feds have poor boundaries, viewing everything from the wheat in your garden, to home-made soap, as somehow being their business. And many otherwise sensible persons kow-tow to their nonsense..
Re. assertions above, that smoking cannabis inherently endangers others, I've yet to see any proof of that.
The law already prohibits operating vehicles when too impaired, regardless of what caused the impairment.
The law already requires children be cared for, though one might support outlawing bingo, surfing the internet, etc.; hobbies that can take a parent's focus away from their child. Equally assanine ideas.
Cannabis, by itself, excluding the issues listed above, doesn't endanger anyone, other than perhaps the user.
According to a respected respiratory physician, Dr. Tashkin, even chronic smokers of cannabis don't present any higher frequency of respiratory cancer than persons who smoke nothing
Why not prohibit alcohol too?
1.) In a free land, persons possess privacy in the relationship between themselves, their bodies, and their experience of life, until they harm or endanger someone else.
2.) Every culture has had intoxicants, whether for recreation or medicine. Even young children spin until they're dizzy, distorting equilibrium. It's been a pursuit since the beginning of recorded time.
3.) It's virtually unenforcable, and leads to increased corruption in law enforcement. (See ex-police chief Joe MacNamara's quotes, J. Edgar Hoover's reasons for turning down the job that Harry Anslinger later took, and the testimony of Alan Dershowitz, pertaining to current police corruption.)
4.) In free societies, persons are presumed innocent until they harm or endanger others.
5.) The U.S. leads the planet in rates of incarceration per capita, costing $40,000.00/year in Alaska just to house inmates, let alone processing, as well as probation and parole, etc.
6.) Prohibition causes more ills than it cures.
In a -free- society there are only three basic laws; 1.) Don't take what's not yours (including others' liberty), 2.) Don't provoke undue violence (such as when taking another's liberty), and 3.) Don't endanger others who haven't asked to be involved in your actions (acknowledging that such agreement implies that the persons are past the age of majority.)
Defining the relationship between another and their own body is not only intrusive, it's a form of theft.
What a scream! I can just see some of the message posters taking a hit, feeling indignant, and posting their manifesto. Oh, the injustice of it all. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Smoking marijuana is not the most evil thing in the world. Making marijuana the center piece of your existence is evil and stupid. You can easily end up wasting your life. I've seen it.
Before you judge that this is just more conservative agenda mindless repetition, consider that I have smoked pot for 40 years. Still do.
PS. Not very often, anymore.
No pot was puffed during, before, or after any of my writing above, glacierles.
And as I've said before, many times, to many persons, it's not even about pot. It's about persons' RIGHT to be left alone, and live their lives as they see fit; even if it's to sit idly and finger-paint..
Always has been. Always will be. Pot is little more than a symbol today that the misled, fallaible, fearful tyrannous majority, and the 'gummint,' can take it upon themselves to tell you how to relate to/with yourself, and what intoxicants are approved/disapproved, even when the ones that they tacitly recommend are far more lethal and debilitating than the ones that they destroy others' lives over.
LOTS of persons are rotting in federal prison over some weed. Persons raided have been shot to death by the persons raiding their homes, and in more than a few of those cases, no pot or other drugs were found at all.
That's not funny, and it's not a 'scream.' But for persons who really believe in self-determination and real freedom, it makes them WANT to scream... and more.
It'd about liberty, glacierles. It's about folks fed up with a propagandized majority treading where they had no business to tread in the first place.
For many of those who are indignant, including myself, it's more likely about that issue, than it is about a love of cannabis. It's about exclusion, condemnation, being labelled a social outcast, being branded beyond employment or schooling due to a bust for a roach or a pound.
If someone came to my door-step, and audaciously assumed the right to dictate the specifics of my relationship between myself and my own mind/body, especially within the confines of my own home, I'd liikely see them leaving my property in a horizontal position post haste. Yet persons suffering from a twisted version of bombardier's or sniper's syndrome, take it upon themselves to make such determinations from the voting booth, apparently without ever really asking themselves whether they have the right to tell another what to do, how to live, or not, simply because a third party afforded them the opportunity to.
If you think that this is merely about pot, then maybe you have smoked or drank too much already.
OK, let me play devil's advocate. If we legalized possession of marijuana in the home, is it then also legal to transport it to or from the home? So having it in your car is legal? How much? Any amount? More importantly, are we legalizing it for all ages? Only over 18? What about in schools? Can an over 18 year old student, or a faculty member, bring it to school? Have it in their car in the parking lot? I'm just pointing out that this is a very slippery slope.
More importantly, should it be illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana? How do we define "under the influence?" Unlike alcohol, there is no defined limit of what that means, and there is no field expedient way (such as a breath test) to determine the "amount" of marijuana in a person's system. If they have it on their breath, is that evidence of impairment? How do we define impairment? Does a person have to be stoned out of their mind to be impaired?
My point is it's easy to shout "legalize it!" from the mountain tops, but the devil is in the details.
P.S. Newsreader, you use the fact that we have few people in jails here for MJ possession as an argument for legalizing it, but if we had lots of people in jails for possession, would you make the same argument? I don't see a link between how many people are in jail for an issue and whether or not that issue should be legalized.
The 1983 legislative codification of the 1975 Ravin Decision made the age of majority for cannabis 19 y.o.; specifically because that was the age of majority for alcohol in Alaska in 1983.
From May, 1975 until March of 1983, there was technically no age of majority set for cannabis, and up to an ounce possession in public was legal, providing that it wasn't publicly displayed or used.
Did persons abuse this threshhold? Yep. Did the earth crash through the galaxy and the sky fall to the ground in fragments because of it? No.
If you're concerned about persons driving under the influence of cannabis, you can find a series of studies conducted in the Netherlands, but bearing a US DOT cover on them, as they were paid for by the U.S. DOT.
They were conducted by a Dutch Professor/researcher with the last name of Robb.
The first study is entitled 'Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance.' Don't read the abstract available on the web; they butchered it. Instead, read the entire study, which is likely still available from the NHTSB branch of DOT.
The second study was titled, "Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance.'
And yes, there's a synergy for many persons when alcohol and cannabis are used in combination, even when they blow below the .08 limit on the breathalyzer.
Yet persons who smoked potent cannabis in significant volume, and DIDN'T drink any alcohol, often tested in actual driving performance equivalent to persons who blew a .04 on the breathalyzer.
In some states .04 used to be the cut-off for commercial operators. That should give you some indication.
By thew way, from May 1975, until March 1983, there were no specific definitions for 'small amounts for personal use.'
In a 1978 Potters Flats case, a State Judge ordered the return of 23 lbs. to the owner.
That same year, in a Kenai case, an attorney I'm personally acquainted with successfully defended a fellow in a case that resulted in the State judge ordering the return of a lb.
Reagan's War On (Some) Dugs hadn't yet been amped up, and there was little drug war insanity at that time in Alaska.
Chelly - I admit its a weak argument - others have made much better ones - and, I threw it out mostly as a discussion starter...
However, the point I was making is that (apparently) we are barely enforcing the (unconstitutional) law as it is - and the Supreme court has already ruled on it a couple of times. So, spending a bunch of money for the judges, counselor, and all of that to run it through the court system YET AGAIN is just a further waste of money. As far as I'm concerned we're already wasting police and court time on this silly prohibition - how many times are we going to have to do this?
I do agree with most of the comments for keeping anything that you do in your own home private. I've been advacate for years, on the issue of personal freedoms no matter what they may be!Once we let "Big-Brother" into our personal space, will we be able to control what freedoms they will try to mess with. Yes we need to keep it out of kids hands (under 18 years old) I think "D.A.R.E. is doing that fine. Just leave the responsible smokers alone!!!!!!!
Huckabee you stated your opinion of the verse refrenced from the Bible. I have read, studied and will discuss on any level with ANYONE the scripture. How about the part that was written by Paul in his 'prison letters' that said you should not look down on people of other faithes if the beliefs that they have are different from yours so long as they live there life as if they have the words of Christ written into there heart as shown by there actions? Please, please show me a part of the Bible that says what you infered, SAY IT, not interpetted to mean but actually says that.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.