Marijuana.com

Zilos

BILL: Alaskans couldn't light up, even in privacy of their own homes.

JUNEAU -- Last fall 44 percent of Alaska voters said they wanted all amounts of pot to be legal for adults to use, grow, sell or give away.

They are not likely to find a single member of the Legislature who agrees.

That's a key fact, since the Legislature is now considering Gov. Frank Murkowski's push to again make it illegal for adults to use modest amounts of marijuana in their own homes.

"I'd say I've got my work cut out for me to stop this bill," said Bill Parker, a former Anchorage legislator who, on behalf of Alaskans for Marijuana Regulation and Control, is opposing the governor's effort.

The governor's bill cleared the Senate Health, Education and Social Services Committee last week with little opposition. The House Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on it this morning.

Parker argued that, while the majority of Alaskans don't support full-blown legalization, the fact that 44 percent do indicates Murkowski is out of touch. And, he said, legislators fall back on conventional political wisdom that the safest course is to declare themselves against all drugs.

"The average politician's conclusion is that if you (even) talk about drugs, then people will think that you are for drugs," Parker said.

Crucial elements of the debate, such as the right to privacy in the home and the specific effects of pot, get lost, he said.

Anchorage Republican Rep. Norm Rokeberg said it's not about politics.

"I disagree with those 44 percent, personally, and I believe the proper public policy is to prohibit the possession and use of marijuana," he said.

He said the majority of Alaskans spoke and said they wanted all marijuana illegal.

In 1990 Alaska voters passed an initiative to criminalize the possession of any amount of marijuana. The governor is trying defend that initiative in the courts, Rokeberg said.

The Alaska Supreme Court in September let stand a lower court ruling that adults have the right to possess less than four ounces of pot for personal use in their own homes. The court ruled it is protected under the strong right to privacy in the state constitution.

Murkowski hopes his bill will create a legislative record showing that marijuana is harmful enough that the state's interest in banning it should outweigh the constitutional right to privacy.

The bill would also make possession of more than four ounces of pot a felony crime.

Callers testifying against the bill have reminded lawmakers that many of their constituents favored all-out legalization in last fall's election.

One caller said legislators ought to heed the potential backlash from those voters in their "political calculus" of whether to support the bill.

"I look forward to telling my constituents why I support this bill," Fairbanks Republican Sen. Gary Wilken retorted. "That's my political calculus."

Wilken, who represents a district in which 43 percent of voters favored all-out legalization last fall, said he believes that marijuana is damaging and even the use at home by adults should be illegal.

Juneau Democratic Sen. Kim Elton was the only legislator on the Senate health committee to argue against the governor's bill. Elton represents a district in which 55 percent voted in favor of full legalization.

Elton said he is "slightly out of step" with his constituents in that he does not favor marijuana legalization. But he said he doesn't have a problem with the courts' interpretation that adult at-home use of modest amounts of marijuana is covered under the right to privacy.

Elton said he was worried that enforcement of the governor's anti-pot bill would divert state dollars from what he called the bigger problems of drunk driving and methamphetamine abuse.

Homer Republican Rep. Paul Seaton's district also narrowly favored pot legalization. Seaton said he doesn't want legalization. But neither is he enthusiastic about the governor's plan to crack down on pot.

"I think we've got a lot bigger problems to worry about," Seaton said.

Daily News reporter Sean Cockerham can be reached in Juneau at scockerham@adn.com.

__________________
:: Posting Guidelines :: 420 Lounge :: Hemp Cultivation :: Myths :: Canadian Laws :: U.S. Laws :: Recipes ::

 

reggie_the_dog

I don't understand, if the supreme court said that adults have the right to smoke in their home and the legislature makes another laws saying that adults can't wouldn't this new law still be unconstitutional?

vladimir

the real question is, how can 44% of the people be for something, yet the politicians elected to represent them are compeletely against it?
what happened to democracy?

__________________
If a drug (or technique or process) were ever to be discovered which would consistently produce a plus four experience in all human beings, it is conceivable that it would signal the ultimate evolution, and perhaps the end of, the human experiment.

castklear

Every night in Fairbanks Alaska on the 6th street bar scene a VIOLENT FIGHT BREAKS OUT....or maybe everyother night....When have you ever heard of a marijuana fight? NEVER!

In Fairbanks its legal to be drunk in public stumbling all over swearing acting like a fool....while the pot smokers must stay inside from public view...heaven forbid we see somebody in uncontrolled laughing ...having a great time out on the town...HUNGRY, ...REALLY HUNGRY!

These politicans are really stupid or they are alcoholics that see pot as a threat to there abusive private behavior...while they scheme against what "WE the PEOPLE WANT"...to guarantee the lies and fear control the masses!

Only good politican is a unelected one!

While we live in a host oriented infinite blueprint gone astray.

Buzzby

The new law will be challenged before the Alaskan Supreme Court. The governor hopes that the so-called "findings of fact" in the new bill will influence the court to take the position that the dangers of the imaginary New Super-Potent Post-Millennial Pot are such that the danger to the public's health outweighs the right to privacy that was behind the court's earlier ruling.

My guess is that the judges are smarter than that and will not appreciate the attempted end-run around the earlier ruling.

I'm sure that there will be well-reasoned amicus curea briefs from NORML, DPA, MPP, and other pro-marijuana groups that will effectively shoot down the bullshït "facts" in the bill.

If you haven't done so yet, it's time to divert some of your stash money to the organizations that are fighting for your right to toke down without having to worry about being arrested for it. If each of us smoked 10% less and sent the money to these guys, they would have half a billion dollars to work with instead of the paltry couple of million they have now.

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)

Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)

__________________

 

Buzzby

Either Rokeberg is an idiot or he thinks everyone else is. The fact that 56% of voters weren't for total legalization does not in any way imply that "they wanted all marijuana illegal". There are more than two possible positions. This is the logical fallacy known as "false dilemma" in which the arguer falsely states that there are fewer choices than there really are.

I'm sure that some of the "anti-" voters want all marijuana illegal. I'm also sure that some of them want to maintain the status quo, in which it's legal to have up to four ounces in your home. Some want decriminalization rather than full legalization. Some want it legal only for medical purposes. There must be many other positions counter to full legalization but not total prohibition that I haven't considered.

Cassius

Or both! =/

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }