Marijuana.com

PotShot

Laissez-faire Alaska weighs tough new marijuana laws
ANNE SUTTON | chron.com | April 15, 2006

JUNEAU, ALASKA - Alaska's law on marijuana possession is considered the most liberal in the country — but its governor wants to change that, saying pot has evolved into "a dangerous drug."

Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski argues that recreational use of pot should no longer be protected by Alaskans' right to privacy. He's pressing the Legislature to restore criminal penalties for marijuana possession.

Residents now may keep up to 4 ounces in their homes.

The intent is to trigger a constitutional challenge and ultimately overturn the landmark Alaska Supreme Court decision that legalized the use of small amounts of marijuana. The state's highest court concluded in 1975 that Alaskans' constitutional right to privacy outweighed any harm that might occur from using a small amount of marijuana in the home. State legislators set that amount at 4 ounces in 1982.

Although 11 other states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use, they generally set the limit at one ounce and most levy a fine for possession, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Alaska's marijuana laws are "bar none" the most liberal in the country, he said.

Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but 11 states including Alaska allow it to be used for medicinal purposes.

Murkowski's bill is wrapped into legislation that seeks to curb the manufacture of methamphetamine and now awaits action in a legislative panel.

House Majority Leader John Coghill, a Republican, said the marriage of the two bills has caused some resentment within his caucus. Yet he thinks the bill will pass.

The Murkowski administration insists marijuana is far more potent and dangerous today.

The state claims the levels of marijuana's psychoactive ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydro- cannabinol, have risen tenfold or more over the past three decades.

But opponents say the data are flawed because testing in the 1970s was faulty.

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

 

michaelbation

just because some weed is more potent today doesn't mean that it's more dangerous. more potent weed is a good thing because the smoker will get high quicker therefore making them stop quicker. that's like saying that wine is more dangerous than beer because it has more ethanol.

troublemaker_42

everyone HERE is aware of that. However, it makes a good soundbite when spoken by someone "official" even though it holds no water whatsoever

Buzzby

Bears are more dangerous than wine, period. Ask Stephen Colbert! Mix a bear and ethanol and you've got a prescription for disaster. A drunken bear doth not a good companion make.

__________________

michaelbation

well you never know when those bears'll get a hold of ethenol.

 

Little Nicky

The more potent weed is just a myth created by the DEA to convince baby boomers that marijuana is dangerous.
There were high potency brands of weed in the 60's. The DEA didn't test that stuff though. Their data is based on the cheap Mexican weed that flooded most of america back then.

michaelbation

i know, that's why i put "...just beacuse some weed is more potent today..."

lost cause

They are trying to make weed sound more dangerous by saying that there is more potent strains of marijuana today then there was in the 60 and 70's. How the hell is that a bad thing?. It means everyone is getting higher and learning the boundaries of a substance that should be recreational and medicinal and not illegal.