Marijuana possession argued before Alaska's high court
Originally published Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 4:01 p.m.
Updated Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 7:45 p.m.
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU _ An effort to recriminalize marijuana is in the hands of the Alaska Supreme Court after the high court heard oral arguments Thursday.
The latest round in a decades-old battle over the drug revolves around a two-year-old state law that would make illegal the personal at-home use of small amounts of marijuana in Alaska.
A lower court struck down part of the law two years ago saying it conflicts with past Supreme Court decisions. The state Department of Law appealed the case.
This week special assistant attorney general Dean Guaneli reprised his argument that the new law contains findings by the Legislature on the dangers of marijuana that were not considered by the court in the past.
"It's a different kind of drug, it's a different era and the Legislature considered all that and reached its decision," Guaneli said after the hearing.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska challenged the law on the grounds that the state constitution and its privacy provisions protect adults who use marijuana in their homes.
Attorneys said the state has failed to prove that public health has suffered in Alaska a result of the court's 1975 landmark decision, known as Ravin v. State.
"The effect of Ravin has been that privacy rights are respected. Nothing relevant has changed since 1975," said ACLU staff attorney Adam Wolf.
The state law at issue was approved by the 2006 Alaska Legislature, spurred on by then-Gov. Frank Murkowski. The idea was to trigger a constitutional challenge and ultimately overturn the Ravin decision.
In gearing up for a court fight, Murkowski and the Legislature included in the bill a set of findings meant to prove that marijuana has increased in potency since the original Supreme court decision, and therefore had become more dangerous.
When the law took effect that June, the ACLU sued the state and Juneau Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins struck it down one month later, saying the new law conflicted with past constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court. Collins limited her decision to possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana, even though the state law increases penalties for possession of more than that amount.
The Alaska Constitution has a special guarantee of privacy from government interference. And the Ravin decision said that right-to-privacy outweighs any social harm that might be caused by the personal at-home use of small amounts of marijuana. While the decision was not absolute, the court said the state would have to clear a very high hurdle to justify interfering with that right to privacy.
The state is using the legislative findings to argue that time has come.
Guaneli said that marijuana's psychoactive ingredient, known as THC, is far more potent than before, that pregnant women in Alaska use marijuana at a higher rate than the national average and that 10 percent of users become psychologically dependent on the drug.
He said he wanted to dispel the notion that the use of marijuana is OK "if all you do is step over the threshold of your home before you light up."
The ACLU, however, argued that the court should not bow to politically motivated findings that were tailor-made for the case.
Wolf said the independence of the judiciary was at stake and the court "needs to look with extreme skepticism at the legislature's findings" before it considered overturning decades of precedence protecting Alaskan's right to privacy.
The ACLU is joined by two individual plaintiffs. A 54-year-old woman referred to as Jane Doe uses marijuana to treat pain caused by a neurological illness, according to the ACLU.
She and another plaintiff, a 42-year-old woman referred to as Jane Roe, won't list their real names because they fear prosecution under the new law.
The court is expected to rule on the case within a year. The justices could remand the case back to the lower court for trial.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
waste of time and money. I think everyone should become alchoholics and crime and demestic abuse would take a dive.
Don't even get me started on this. First off, "The state appealed the case to the high court after a lower court struck down the law shortly after it was passed." Mabey I'm missing something, but how does "The State" get to appeal anything? I don't understand how they could have standing in the case. If anything, since the State has to pay the cost of incarceration of criminals, it seems like they would only be harmed by the 'creation' of a law criminalizing an activity. Not the opposite.
But there I go thinking logically again....
What the heck happened to all of our wonderful comments on this topic? Is the newsminer censoring us again? (More likely a glitch in the system, but it hasn't happened before)
So, maybe I'll start over.
We should legalize it. According to what I was recently shown, there are only 7 people in the entire state incarcerated for possession. So, this is a big waste of our state's time and money...
"The State" means the prosecutors. They represent the citizens against criminal defendants. The book Law 101 by Roche is a great book for every citizen (its intended audience) to read.
I also favor the "legalize and tax like tobacco" side of the marijuana debate, and I have never used it. It is a matter of efficient and effective criminal policy versus headless morality (the conservative version of neo-liberal headless hearts).
Too bad the high court is not really high! Then they might for the first time understand what all the fuss is about. Pot today stronger? You bet. Now it only takes a couple of small hits, instead of bowl after hookah bowl, to get a comfortable buzz. That makes smoking today's pot much healthier than the old days, because one needs so little. Jeez, you guys, grow up! Believe it or not, we are actually grown up enough to make our own decisions about things! Are you trying to be my 'dad'? Why don't those against this 'nasty' plant get over it. You would be incredibly surprised if you really knew who all the smokers are. In fact, you would be shocked!
I know of at least one lawyer and one judge in this town who are high, and I've heard about several more ;)
My first recollection of troopers was when my stupid brother ripped off a trooper's grow room... *lol*
So, yes, PanoMan, you are soooo right about that.
We live in a country that has more citizens incarcerated than any other country (including China and Russia) in the world. I think it's high time (pun intended) to legalize marijuana and tax the heck out of it. At least then we would have money to fund social programs to help children and young adults find something more rewarding to do with their lives than getting high.
I believe in the legalization of marijuana -- for adults. The harshest complexities of this problem lie not with what adults do, but what our young people do. Oh, and that it's easier for our government to use marijuana as a scapegoat for all our social problems rather than actually address the rest of the issues.
The policies and laws now in effect simply aren't working.
A proud member of the socialist and liberal mob since 1968.
I'll listen to Joe. In my experience, you can always count on him to bring a reasonable voice to an argument--- especially if it provokes a few thoughts. (And with his name out there for all to see.) Thanks Mr. Murphy.
Once again a lawyer thinks that he knows what is better for the people than there own right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. When will people realize that you can not legislate morality? If there are people that will do things for there own pleasure despite the fact that it is illegal (not because of what it does to us but because when something is illegal and people still want it, the fact that it is illegal creates a criminal element not the drug itself) why not regulate and tax? Will any amount of legislation stop the use? NO! Will any amount of legislation deter future use? NO! What has happened and will continue to happen is that young adults will see that our elected officials have passed something on eroneous information and they will draw the conclusion that if they where misled on one drug, where they lied to on them all? Then they will go experiment and end up in possibly worse addictive behaviors and even better yet, when some pencil pushing state worker asks if they tried pot first they will honestly say 'yes' and some idiot will tell us that is one more kid who is a statistic for how marijuana is a bridge drug to harder drugs and they will miss the point that it was due to being misled, not because someone made them question all drugs due to propoganda information put out by a bunch of people that would rather you contributed your money to the system that creates there income. Whew.
Point being, that if it is just a plant and all kinds of people grew there own the criminal element that is created by the drug searching behavior associated to the fact it is illegal to purchase would be removed and this would be a mute point. but hey, who is easier to tax, a big company or a bunch of closet farmers?
Oh yeah, if I have some typos, dont blame the marijuana; I may not be able to spell anyway.
Beer has gotten stronger as well. Maybe we should criminalize Ice Beer also. Much ado about nothing. "Pot got more votes than Hickel." Human behavior cannot be regulated.
not to mention the fact and adult can go and purchase a lethal dose of alcohol anytime the liquor stores are open-- the ones that dont drink just enough to get violent and create all kinds of havoc--read the blotter everyday-- i am not saying thats the reason to allow small amounts of weed in the privacy of the home but when was the last time you read of someone getting stoned and then slapping the old lady around, smoking so much they fell asleep and froze in a snowbank?? etc etc etc -- you would think since '75 there had been all kinds of pot related trouble--but most of the trouble has come from those dealing illegally in large quantities.. you wont hear about joe "couple tokes" doing much more than eating all the food in the fridge..
I always liked that bumper sticker...Pot got more votes than Hickel" We have to trust that our Supreme Court will have the same intestinal fortitude that they have shown in the past and reaffirm our right to privacy. We have, and should, lead the nation in showing Americans what it is like to have a real privacy clause in a state Constitution. I smoked for many years, but have not smoked for some time now. I still believe that marijuana is a benign substance that has no place on the law books as something illegal.
Mrderik, based on that logic, the state should legalize everything, then it wouldn't have to pay the cost of incarcerating anybody. So much for logical thinking.
Newsreader, there are two articles, and each has its own set of comments. The other article is the one with the long list of comments.
Why is it that the "State" is so worried about marijuana? What about alchol. What about Meth? What about Cocaine? I have spent the last 3 years managing a "headshop" and have come to learn that marijuana is not the main drug of choice by Alaskan's. A large percent of Alaskan's are marijuana users, but a majority of "abusers" are cocaine addicts. And I ahve learned that the most popular past time of younger Alaskan's is combining alchol and cocaine. I have found that here is twice (maybe even three times) as many cocaine users as there is Meth and Marijuana users combined. If the "State" is so worried about drug abuse then maybe they should start with the real problems at hand and leave the rest of US alone. Personal comsumption in our own home is our right given to us by our GOVERMENT. Would you rather us smoke a bowl of weed and be lazy on our couches munching food, or go out to the bar to get drunk and do a couple lines in order to keep from passing out only to be drunk, awake, and looking for something to do (like driving around town stealing cars and lighting them on fire). The more potent the pot is, the lazier the user is, can you say the same for all other drugs? The "State" should use all this money they are wasting on this subject and put it into other issues that need to be addressed such as the current economic depression we are sruggling through right now even though we are supposed to be the richest state in America.
God made pot.
Man made booze.
Who do you trust?
"High Court" HAHAHA!! Newsminer you crack me up...
Personal comsumption in our own home is our right given to us by our GOVERMENT.
While I agree with your sentiment, this statement is incorrect. Government did not GIVE us ANY right. They may allow us to keep some rights, but "rights" come down to us from our creator. Joe Vogler once said the following quote and he was a man so wise and dear to Alaska:
"Government is not the giver of rights; only God confers these to the people. People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
God Bless Alaska and Joe, RIP.
I guess you all missed the US Supreme Court Ruling stating that all marijuana is illegal including medical use marijuana. While you are all talking about making marijuana legal and taxing it how are you going to treat people who drive under the influence of marijuana? I guess once vehicle fatalities double due to pot smokers we could just tell those affected at least we are getting taxes from the sales and there aren’t as many people in jail. Come on people grow up.
I would much rather be on the road with some pot smokers than someone who had been drinking. The pot smoker would be driving 10 miles UNDER the speed limit and be driving very carefully. The guy who had been drinking would be driving 30 miles OVER the speed limit and disregarding all rules of the road.
Here is an example of the type of criminals who we need off our streets:
Published Thursday, March 13, 2008
Fairbanks police seized more than 60 marijuana plants from an apartment Thursday.
The raid occurred in the 1400 block of Gillam Way with the assistance of the Drug Enforcement Agency after several months of investigation.
A total of 56 still-growing plants and a dozen harvested plants were seized by authorities.
Several other agencies, including other local police departments, Alaska State Troopers and the FBI assisted in the investigation.
The suspected marijuana grower is a 59-year-old woman whose identification has not been released by police . Charges have been forwarded to the U.S. attorney's office.
God made pot.
Man made booze.
Who do you trust?
HAHAHHAHAHAH, That is really funny, Thanks, that made my day!!
YouMustBConfused
Fbksreader wrote "I guess once vehicle fatalities double due to pot smokers we could just tell those affected at least we are getting taxes from the sales and there aren’t as many people in jail. Come on people grow up." Give me a break, did you ever tell a victim of a drunk driver at least we're getting taxes...Alcohol and Marijuana are not even in the same ball park. No one said lets let them smoke and drive, the point here is "in the privacy of your own home" of course if you leave your home, get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive the laws of driving under the influence would apply to everyone. We don't say its legal to drink ONLY in the privacy of your own home, but people (even pot smokers) are willing to put that stipulation on pot smoking.
Coffee is more of a drug than marijuana.
Embrace this herb for there is much more than meets the eye.
This state used to be hip to the scene of right to privacy, but I guess those state troopers want to get high too.
I'm glad to see there is so much support for legalization. What I choose to do IN MY HOME should not concern anyone as long as I'm not bothering someone else. I don't drink hard liquor or smoke tobacco. Nor has weed opened a "gate way" for me to use harder drugs. In fact, when I have weed I don't drink alcohol at all and feel better in the morning for it. Please, let's work together to decriminalize this plant that God gave us.
If we want more involvement in the "war on drugs" then we should criminalize pot. Do Alaskans need more "investigation" from drug raiding privateers in federal uniforms? Do we need our doors kicked in and personal property destroyed and or stolen? People in this town, our town, have been assaulted, intimidated and legaly abused by the drug war with only conviction or the threat of taking on the government as our legal recourse. It is happening right now to people we know. I'm not being meladramatic or making this up. Do we want MORE of this? If you are for for further illegalization of pot please do some research or ask some questions and find out what is REALLY happening to people who are even suspected of violating federal drug laws. It may change your position on things if you look deep enough and care about general freedoms that we all should enjoy...but don't.
Commonsnipe, if they choose to legalize it in Alaska, it won't do a thing to the federal laws. It may even make things worse because it will draw the attention of the feds at the federal level and they may want to make an example out of us (Alaska) to prevent other states from doing the same.
Marlaleej, how are you defining under the influence? As I said before, unlike alcohol, there is no expedient field test to determine how much pot a person has been smoking or how much it is affecting them. Such tests can be done by Drug Recognition Experts, but it takes over an hour, and the experts are few and far between. It's not like the "follow the tip of my finger and walk a straight line" tests that are used to determine if a person is under the influence of alcohol.
Fairbanksgas, hard to tell if your being sarcastic or not. If not, if pot is legalized, what does it matter if you have an ounce or a pound or a hundred pounds. The person that has an ounce had to get it somewhere, so why is it legal to have a personal use amount, but illegal for a person to have enough to supply several others with personal use amounts?
I love to smoke pot. I also am a very productive member of Fairbanks , and a tax payer. See you at Freds. Yak
Who defines what personal use is? I've known people who's "personal use" could very well supply MANY, while others toke once every few months. Let's make sure that the law is crystal clear so that we can quit jailing folk unnecessarily.
PS I still think smoking pot is a dumb thing to do, but so are MANY other things in this world. Have fun.
I agree with Fairbanksgas, Angie and tbear44. I dont smoke myself, but i do agree that alcohol is much worse than weed. seriously people do get really drunk and do stupid stuff that results in jail time or even deaths or even their own death so why is alcohol still legal? who knows, the government is so messed up. marijuana has never killed anyone i know or resulted in injuries or anyone i know, but i know way tooo many people to count who have died from alcohol, making the wrong choices and what not.
chelly -
I think it is up to Alaskans to set the precedence that marijuana is not the same as the other "drugs". America is lying to everyone - especially our youths - when they say that pot is like coke, crack, meth, heroine, etc. When that lie is discovered, as johnw612 pointed out, it may lead to bigger problems. It certainly did for me. I figured, well, since this pot hasn't had any negative effects, but rather several beneficial effects, maybe these other drugs aren't so bad either. Thus began my 12 year meth addiction. (which, at the time, I hadn't even heard of - thanks a lot America for the TOTAL lack of education on that one).
Besides that, the feds will (can) only get involved on 100 or more plants and/or some very large amounts of cash. For most of us, this will not matter - simply grow 99 or less plants and don't get rich off of them.
As far as "under the influence" goes - we already bust people for driving under the influence of pot. But, you are right, this does require a DRE. So, my question is, if the standard impairment tests don't work then is the person really impaired at all? If you can pass field sobriety tests stoned, then is being stoned really that dangerous? I mean, by definition, if you pass you are not impaired...
As far as your finally question, as soon as commerce is involved in this, the government will have to stick their finger in the pie and start taxing, etc. If we wish to avoid this, we need to make sure that no commerce is allowed. [Of course, I think that we should entirely legalize it and that we should regulate and tax it. But, we can only proceed by baby steps at this point. Let's make possession legal. Then we can work on bringing the deluded public to reality. Only then can we work on the commerce aspect.]
Chelly, I don't think you grasped the point of my post, flawed as it may be. Point being that people now, RIGHT NOW, are having their homes property and lives violated in the name of supressing drugs, but we will not hear or see anything about it most of the time. Drug busts are glossed over with simplified headlines like: Suspect arrested for suspected marijuana production. What we don't see is that there were National Gaurd soldiers and heavily armed and armored police officers raiding these "suspects" with military style assault tactics. I know they don't make a distinction between the dangerous drug producers (and some are very dangerous) and some guy growning a little too much pot, but shouldn't they? This kind of thing leads to stronger stuff, and I'm talking about government raids not the catch phrase for the anti-pot lobby. If they can raid suspects and cow them into submission with the threat of a prolonged prosecution (and the fear of further destructive and aggressive raids) then why not apply the same "successful" tactics elsewhere where careful lawmaking has failed to produce results. The State giving in to Federal law is just that, a ceding of sovereignty and an acceptance of this behaviour. Just give in, it will be easier on all of us. Right?
(P.S. of course police should protect themselves, this is not anti police)
In support of commonsnipe, and, as I posted before, the troopers have stolen around $15,000 of grow equipment from me in my life.
They will break into your house, steal your stuff, and you never hear from them again. I have never been charged, only illegally stolen from.
I have a friend whose houses was broken into while they were on vacation. The troopers busted in their doors (breaking door jambs, etc and leaving the house completely open and unlocked afterwards). They stole his computers, they trashed his entire home (bedroom, living room, study, downstairs - all of it). At first, he thought he'd been robbed - the bed was overturned, his dresser drawers all dumped out on the floor, cabinets emptied. Mind you, the grow WAS NOT EVEN IN HIS HOUSE! It was outside in a shed, which they destroyed as well - using his skill saw to cut all of the wiring, ceiling, floors, etc. They also took all of his lights (grow, incandescent, fluorescent), put them in a tub and beat them with a sledge hammer. Cut out all of the normal fixtures as well. For hours he thought he was the victim of a horrible home invasion/robbery. Then, he found a troopers business card and the inevitable "inventory" sheet they leave.
And, guess what? HE WAS NEVER CHARGED!!!
So, what do you call that? I'd call it government theft and vandalism!
Good post newsreader. But one correction;
The feds -can- get involved in a cannabis bust involving ANY amount of plants, or aggregate weight.
The 100-plant threshhold is more or less a standard operating recommendation, but is not binding on them.
In Georgia, several years back, a hunter driving into federally-owned land (not that there's any of that in Alaska ;^>)... ) was stopped by a multi-jurisdictional fish and wildlife crew. He had ONE joint in his ash tray. He did 6-months federal time.. Federal turf issues.
Locally, Police Chief Dan Hoffman, Fbks P.D., before being 'reminded' that his threats to involve the Feds in small-time possession busts violated the City's Charter, would threaten exactly that.
In one case, acting on a mere tip, he reportedly threatened an unregistered medical user, living within the city limits, with bringing the Feds to the house if they didn't hand over their (less than one ounce of) pot.
Each case is different, and if the buggers want to hammer you, they can and will.
That's where a sane federal prosecutor and a sane local LEO/LEA comes into play as major variables.. Sometimes you've got 'em, and sometimes you don't. More often than not these days, it seems to me that we don't. One of the marks of sanity is an abiity to prioritize 'life issues and needs,' and LEAs acrosss the land have shown repeatedly that they're not always capable of that.
But the fact of the matter is that the Feds don't have the number of foot-soldiers necessary to enforce simple possession laws across the board here.
Of course, Shrub has been working with his favorite theocrat mercenary outfit, Blackwater, in letting contracts for border-based interdiction. And who knows where that hair-brained scheme might run to. Lord knows how 'well' they worked out in New Orleans.
Anyway, recently speaking, at least one federal prosecutor in N. California has implied that they're considering ceasing the harassment busts of medical cannabis clinics there.
"The tide will turn, even if only by shere pressure of the force of the volume of the water involved."
IT IS HYPOCRITICAL TO LEGALLY SANCTION ALCOHOL WHILE CRIMINALLY PUNISHING MARIJUANA.
"In gearing up for a court fight, Murkowski and the Legislature included in the bill a set of findings meant to prove that marijuana has increased in potency since the original Supreme court decision, and therefore had become more dangerous."
Hilarious, alcohol has increased in potency since the same original Supreme court decision. Does this mean we are going to make alcohol illegal as well?
Huh? Oh, man, I was just gonna post something, but then I forgot what it was.
Anyone know where I put my bag of chips? I'm really hungry right now.
(cough, cough)
Isn't this Neil Young album great?
What's goin' on, anyway?
Dude? Are ya there?
Man Curmudgeon, I was on my way home and some (vulgarity deleted) with a fish on the back of his car cut me off. Man I was fuming mad - I wanted to break something... Its a good thing I roasted one as soon as I got home - I feel so much calmer now - I'm glad that I have that option to calm myself when I get all worked up like that. I think I'll play a nice relaxing game with my kid now. ;)
I miss Joe Vogler, he was a true Alaskan, man and friend.
marlaleej- I think one thing that everyone is forgetting is it is illegal to grow marijuana, it’s illegal to buy marijuana and it is illegal to posse marijuana. If you are allowed to posse marijuana in your home how are you going to get it there? At some point you are breaking the law getting to your home unless you have a pot fairy that drops it off for you.
Also I suppose we should make all crimes committed "in the privacy of your own home" legal. It should be ok to assault someone as long as it is in the privacy of your own home. A sexual assault committed in the privacy of your own home..OK.
Do you think that if marijuana was legal there would be no problems with it. There would be a rise in the number of people smoking and I guess the pot smokers would just be ok with paying a large tax for buying marijuana, I don’t think so there are still going to be people growing and selling marijuana illegally.
Beer and wine are both federally- and state-controlled, yet persons are entitled to brew both in their homes. Seen any rogue beer or wine fermenting operations lately in places where it's legal??
I've never heard a single person say, "I'd like to smoke a joint right now, but it's illegal."
Many have an intrinsic knowledge that their relationship with their own body is private. Personal self-determination has always outweighed the State's intrusive agenda throughout recorded history, and especially within the context of natural law.
To comnpare individuals behaving reasonably while using cannabis in their home, to persons assaulting others, is so absurd that it barely merits a response at all.
Cultivation of small amounts for personal use was permissible, under both the 1975 Ravin Decision, as well as the legislative decriminalization bill that preceeded Ravin by roughly 10 days, in May of 1975.
Ravin wasn't about legalizing cannabis; it was about drawing a line at the doorway of persons' homes. A constitutionally-defined boundary, asserting that for the State to invade private spaces, there needed to be "compelling interest."
Hearings were held in in State court, in 1975, and -no- significant "compelling interest" could be established that justified the State invading persons' sanctuaries. No pot fairies required.
Under the legislature's 1975 decrim bill, up to an ounce was permissible to possess in public, as long as it wasn't publicly displayed or used. This included possession in passenger areas of motor vehicles. Seed transportation was resolved. I'd wager that there's homes in Alaska today that have seed stocks dating back to that time when possession and transport was quasi-LEGAL in Alaska. Next question??
Was there notable carnage on the State's highways back then, resulting from this law? NOPE.
Yet we're to believe now that there will be if we revert to respecting this standard. Why? No logical reasoning that I can think of, other than the specious arguments that it's now more potent...
Re. the 'more potent' nonsense.. In the 70s, under Ravin, etc., there was no real distinguishing by law enforcement between cannabis and hashish or other cannabis products. Some of the hashish found in the U.S. back then, according to NIDA's 1971 testing, contained as high as 70% THC content.
There's NOTHING protected under Ravin today that even comes close; the 1983 codification of Ravin established a different category for such semi-refined cannabis products; as ridiculous as this was and is.
By the early 80s, with Ravin still in relatively full force, there was LOTS of high-potency cannabis being LEGALLY produced in Alaska.
Again, were there massive increases in the numbers of motor vehicle accidents resulting from cannabis use in Alaska? Massive increases in users? User-related violence? Nope.
Specious arguments of the Chicken Little variety, one and all.
Next line of absurd assertions?
Dirk,
We will never know what impact the results of the Ravin Decision had on fatalities in Alaska after it came out. As stated earlier by chelly a DRE or drug recigonation expert is needed to make the ultimate decision if someone is under the influence of a drug such as cannabis. The DRE program has only been in Alaska for about 5 to 6 years. There are also sutidies that show that 2/3 rds of the DUI’s that are arrested over a .08 are also using some other type or types of drug(s), which whould inclued maijauna.
If you review the police report you will see there has been a increase in the number of drug impaired drivers arrested the the Fairbanks area in the past couple of years. The reason is there are now 6 trained DRE’s in the Fairbanks area. You will see the number of falities collisions determeined to be casued by impaired drivers under the influence of durgs is going to sky rocket. As Fairbanks get more Officers tranined as DRE’s or educated on the signs and symptoms of durg impaired driver the number of arrest for drug impaired driving is going to sky rocket as well.
Oh one other statistic you find useful is that marijuana users can be impaired by marijuana for up to 24 hours without awareness of the effects.
Fbksreader - The "under the influence" laws are there to stop IMPAIRED DRIVERS from being on the roads.
And I say, AGAIN, if a stoned person is able to pass all of the standard impairment tests, then, by definition, THEY ARE NOT IMPAIRED.
If they can't pass, then they are impaired. It is really that simple.
As far as your typo and spelling error filled statement "You will see the number of falities collisions determeined to be casued by impaired drivers under the influence of durgs is going to sky rocket" goes, your prophecies and predictions hold no weight in a rational debate.
[Just couldn't let it go...]
I would also like to point out to fbksreader, that studies have shown that drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to drive slower and with more caution than they would otherwise. So, your insistance that fatalities will double or skyrocket, are, once again, unfounded rantings of a misinformed individual.
Also, lumping marijuana with "drugs" is a bold faced lie - it is not anything like other "drugs" like coke, crank, meth, heroin, which are the truly addictive drugs causing so many problems in our society.
So, why don't you grow up and stop trying to legislate your morality through a web of disinformation?
I think we should make Juneau a DRY village, no alcohol:0) Let the good 'ole boys feel the infringement on their privacy!
Fbksreader,
You're mistaken.
Yes, DREs now purport to identify cannabis impairment (based on unreliable 'testing' via tracking a driver's eye movement when focusing on an object, which any person with astigmatism will fail), the -FACT- is that cases of traffic -FATALITIES-, often result in blood testing.
While urinalysis isn't able to definitively determine impairment, blood tests come a little closer.
Re. "cannabis impairs a person for 24 hrs," H-O-G W-A-S-H!! That's based on a bogus study involving flight simulators that was flawed from the beginning. And I can present expert witnesses with various credentials who'll testify thus under oath.
Stop listening to government propaganda, and reacting to Chicken Little.
There are credible studies re. driving and cannabis; I presented two earlier.
I knew a State Trooper whom I first met at King Mountain, January, '79. One of the few I respect. A human being, and more objective than the lock-step power-gropers often encountered now.
It was before Bill Bennett came here in violation of the Hatch Act, supporting the unconstitutional 1990 recrim vote, pushing the bogus 'Gateway Drug' hype, (that even the Institute of Medicine mostly deflated in March, 1999). It was before the issue of cannabis in Alaska became so politicized; mainly by biased and frightened individuals, and those who feared the loss of federal revenues.
(So mercenary were they that they'd jail their neighbors and violate the State constitution in order to harm decent & free people. Yet the night of the 1990 vote, they sat in meeting in Anchorage, chanting, "Stop the drugs'; many of them holding alcoholic beverages in one hand, and cigarettes in the other.)
That Trooper told me in 1980 that he'd removed many bodies from wrecks. Lots of drunks, and even drunks who'd smoked some pot. But he said he'd never pulled a body out of a wreck where the person had -only- smoked cannabis, and ingested no other drugs.
Is that anecdotal? Yep. But it matches my experiences, and I've logged well over 1,000,000 highway miles.
There's also the Amtrak wreck others use to bolster your argument. That was a favorite of the Ronnie Reagan crowd, in atttempting to demonize cannabis. I'll head that one off now, before it's launched, in case someone's considering it.
Was the brakeman stoned? Yep, according to the 'evidence.' But unknown to many is the fact that those in the car who should've been watching brake and track switches were entranced by a football game on t.v. (Maybe we need to outlaw football? Or televisions on trains??)
Bill Bennett hated to discuss that aspect, every bit as much as he hated to talk about the study that their own government paid for, referenced earlier; 'Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance.' It doesn't support their propaganda. Neither do the professionals and expert witnesses that I'm familiar with.
By the way, fbksreader, if I haven't made it overwhelmingly clear yet, the eye-movement and tracking testing done by the DREs in cannabis cases is about as scientifically solid as simply asking the detained drivers if they thought that Cheech and Chong's Lps were funny.
If it weren't for a judicial and legislative biase in re. to the bizarre obsessive-compulsive nature of 'war on drugs,' and the relative destitution of the average persons being harassed, thus rendering them incapable of hiring proper legal representation, the majority of 'tests' adminstered to 'suspect drivers' wouldn't even pass constitutional muster, let alone scientific review.
I can remember more than one incident of a person with cerebral palsy or downes syndrome being accused by some pin-head authoritarian of 'being under the influence.'
But hey, that's what nice beefy settlements are all about, right?? ;^>)
Once again, its opinion vs. fact; we argue the pros and cons, but avoid the real issue. The government is of, by, and for the people, not the other way around; this is not a question of the right or wrong of cannabis, but rather a question of individual rights in a free society. At what point did actions suddenly become crimes? Who came up with the foolish notion that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime"? If a crime requires no victim, then it holds that any action is itself a crime, any personal decision has legal consequence, and we have fallen to the very totalitarianism this country was founded in opposition of. Those against legalization of pot, read that last sentence again very carefully; your credibility in this arguement requires you both believe and endorse all its ramifications, and as such deserve no place in a free society. If instead, you understand where this line of thought leads, and it scares you as it should, then you should stop argueing petty grievance and join your friends and neighbors in mandating that Alaska remain a place where an individual still has freedom of choice.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
Dirk,
I guess DRE’s are one thing you haven’t studied up on. Marijuana doesn’t cause Nystagmus like other drugs. The DRE exam is a 12 step process one of those steps being an eye test. The 12 steps as a whole are used to determine if someone is impaired.
No, Fbksreader, I am aware of most of the other various aspects of the exam. But the exam, as you've admitted, also relies on the persons being scrutinized having their eye's ability to track an object (typically the officer's finger) through a range of motion, involving the upper arc of travel, from left to right, and visa versa, as well as whether the eyes are 'red,' watery, and other variables.
They are ALL subjective observations, including the standard performance tests that require an assessment of coordination. Coordination that many unimpaired persons admit to not being able to pass for a variety of reasons, which is why when the field sobriety tests are failed re. alcohol, they follow-up with a breathalyzer; an acknowledgement that the tests are primarily subjective. Even the requests from standard field sobriety tests from ages ago, asking the persons to recite the alphabet backward, amount to a sort of Jim Crow law of the highway, as I assume that you're aware that MANY sober persons can't recite the alphabet backward without great difficulty.
And no, cannabis doesn't 'cause' astigmatism (Note that I never said that it does). It never has. But the eye's behavior for those with astigmatism is almost indistinguishable form the symptoms that the officer is seeking to observe for cannabis impairment..
And that's a fact. ;^>)
>At what point did actions suddenly become crimes? Who came up with the foolish notion that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime"?
That's an easy one - the Church. What we have with Marijuana criminalization is a MORALITY law - Similar to laws against sodomy. There is no rational argument why Marijuana should be illegal when Alcohol and Cigarettes are not. Period end of discussion.
Harder drugs are a little different in that they are quite easily abused in such a manner that can kill their user - so are guns. Both have caused some very unfortunate accidents, but FAR fewer than automobiles.
Bottom line is - In a 'free' Country, your definition of morality stops at my door. And life is dangerous, in fact, it's the leading cause of death.
mrderik - you hit the nail on the head and drove it home! The Church is the cause of MANY, MANY problems in all areas of life, America, and the world. I mean, who can deny the irony that right now we are fighting the same crusade the church fought during the dark ages. Same location, same religions, same idealogies, SAME, SAME, SAME!!!
Please, see the link below for a simplified debate on Drugs. Thank You.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog...
How much time and money has the state spent getting the meth and booze issues under control. It's my understanding that those are the two things that are destroying lives of the irresponsible up there.
Best of luck on this! We're pulling for you.
Didn't take the time to read the posts, so I may be totally out of sync with the gist of the dialog.
This is my take on pot. Legalize it!!
With that said, I tried it a few times close to forty years ago and have no use for it, nor do I care be around anyone that is high. Reducing my IQ to double digits is not my idea of a good time, nor is conversing with someone that has a mental capacity of a five year old.
Anybody caught driving or working dangerous jobs 'stoned' should face extremely harsh penalties.
Besides that, if one wants to smoke pot, huff gasoline(price of gas, pot may be cheaper) or whatever else, knock yerself out.
The other side of the story:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publ...
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.