Marijuana.com

LotusFlower

I was just about to post this very topic.

I heard about it when I received an email from the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics.

September 2, 2003

Court Rules that Alaska Constitution Protects
Personal Possession of Marijuana in the Home

The Alaska Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the Alaska Constitution’s privacy guarantee protects an adult’s right to possess up to four ounces of marijuana in the home for personal use. The ruling (Noy v. State, No. 1897) overturns the conviction of David Noy, a North Pole medical marijuana patient.

The decision was the first to resolve a legal conflict between a 1975 Supreme Court of Alaska decision, Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, and a voter initiative passed in 1990.

The Ravin case determined that while there was no fundamental right to possess or use marijuana, an amendment to the Alaska constitution protecting the right of privacy was broad enough to protect possession of marijuana in the home by adults, provided the possession was purely personal and non-commercial in nature. The 1975 decision affirmed the state’s interest in prohibiting marijuana to protect public welfare, but found that while that interest properly justified laws against driving under the influence of marijuana or laws prohibiting possession of marijuana by minors, it did not justify barring an adult’s personal possession of marijuana inside a home.

Shortly after the Ravin decision, the Alaska legislature amended the state’s marijuana laws and set an upper limit of less than four ounces for personal possession. This earned Alaska the popular, if incorrect, reputation for having legalized marijuana.

In 1990, with the support of then federal drug-czar William Bennett, Alaska voters responded by introducing an initiative to criminalize possession of any amount of marijuana in any location. The initiative, which was carefully designed to invalidate the Ravin decision, passed with 55% of the vote. Prior to Friday’s ruling, then the question of whether the voter initiative could legally trump the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Alaska constitution remained unresolved.

On Friday, August 29, the Court of Appeals ruled that when a statute like the voter initiative conflicts with a constitutional provision, the statute must give way. “[A] statute which purports to attach criminal penalties to constitutionally protected conduct is void,” the court stated. To reconcile the initiative with the state constitution, the appellate court restricted its enforcement to personal possession of four ounces or more of marijuana.

Alaska Attorney General, Gregg Renkes, has criticized the decision as going too far, and intends to appeal it to the Alaska Supreme Court.

The Noy decision can be read online at:
http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/ap-1897.pdf

__________________
You must be the change you wish to see in the world--Mahatma Ghandi

 

Untitled

theres one good thing, and theres one bad thing.

Good Thing, marijuana legal, and this will hopefully start the national wide spread of legalization then hopefully internationally, though there are many other nations decriminilizing it, and some just dont care even though it is illegal, and some nations, its just legal.

Bad Thing, it may take a while for marijuana to become nationally legal... while this event rolls over, the problem is, Alaska's legal statis may bring more to live there...this will bring more business, this will bring more people, this will bring more build up..... NO! NO ! NO! NO! LEAVE ALASKA ALONE YOU EVIL CORPORATE BRAIN WASHED PEASANT HUMANS! ****! that now means I have to get on my feet and start buying tons and tons and tons of acres/lots of land to whatever cost it costs me to protect the land from being raped by human beings.

Of course....thats my view. I already own acres/lots around the nation, and beginning to prepare to buy more. Well, I just wanted to get that out of my chest, my only concern with legalization in Alaska, why not just legalize it every where? Who knows, eventaully hopefully, our generation with do so, and hopefully, our generation will learn to except abortions (to the ones who cant) and birth control laws (2 children per each couple, or 1 child for 1 person, 2 persons = couple = 2 children.) And maybe our generation will learn not to keep building and start de-building, though....thats a different topic, I'm sorry for getting off topic, thats just like what I said, my only concern for Alaska legalizing it.

well, later

__________________
Step a side, truthfulness is miles away, and its a bit bloodier than most of you think, I've seen much more than my age, and after my recent tours throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, South America, Central America, the Carribean, and Northern Canada.... what you see is horrible for you is only luxury to many.

LotusFlower

Dear Friend:

In an historic decision on Friday, August 29, the Alaska Court of
Appeals ruled that the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution
protects personal possession of marijuana. This ruling -- which
overturned the conviction of a North Pole man charged with marijuana
possession -- re-legalizes the possession and/or cultivation of up to
four ounces of marijuana in one's home anywhere in Alaska.

The Alaska state government has vowed to appeal the case to the Alaska
Supreme Court, which will presumably rule on the matter sometime next
year. Please visit http://www.mpp.org to read two news articles about
the decision.

In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in "Ravin v. State of Alaska"
that a fundamental constitutional right to privacy protects personal
marijuana possession. Because of "Ravin," an individual could legally
possess up to four ounces of marijuana for personal use after 1975.

In 1990, a voter initiative changed state law to make possession of
any amount of marijuana illegal, even in one's own home.

The appellate court decision on Friday deemed the 1990 voter
initiative unconstitutional, on the grounds that a popular voter
initiative cannot overturn a core constitutional principle. Please
visit http://www.mpp.org/pdf/AK_decision_082903.pdf to read the court
ruling.

When this case is decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, Alaska could
serve as a model for states to allow responsible adult use of
marijuana without the fear of arrest or imprisonment.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Dalamar49

Wow! I'm on MPP's mailing list and I wasn't told about this.

One of my college friends comes from Alaska and he's siced about gettting to smoke some legal Thunder****!

Maybe Alaska's marijuana revolution will spread to the continental US. I hope so!

jvthc

In some ways, it's not a bad thing that Alaska hasn't received much news attention, or that Walter's isn't protesting as loudly as he is over Canadian decriminalization. In this way, legal precident can be established without much intervention.

Since it's not yet reached the state supreme court, the fight isn't really over.

Combined with the recent, perhaps even more important, ruling in federal court that an ounce of pot, currently in the DEA's possession, must be returned to a medical marijuana patient in California, we have a one-two punch.

In the recent federal decision, it's unfortunate, but not relavent to the legal implications, that the owner of the medical marijuana has disappeared. His truck was found abandoned, and he hasn't been heard from in weeks. However, a federal judge ruled that once the state courts decided the disposition of property, the federal system, despite the CSA, can't swoop in and overtake the issue.

In this situation, a state supreme court ruled against a sheriff who had confiscated the pot from a med user, and was ordered to return it. Instead, he called the feds and turned it over to them. The happily obliged. It's not clear exactly who called whom. It may have been the feds testing the waters, it may have been the sheriff with a grudge against P215. The end result, though, was that a federal judge literally set the rule, that once the state has decided what to do with the marijuana, the feds can't touch it. The judge ordered the DEA to return the ounce. That's NEVER happened before now.

For Alaskans, this means that IF the supreme court appeal goes the same way as the lower courts, and RAVIN is maintained, then on any occasion that someone is busted with less that 4 ounces in their home, and a state court processes the case, the feds can't move in afterwards. If they move in first, there may still be jurisdictional problems on such small quantities, especially when no other cause for pressing trafficking charges exist, so you're right in posting that feds still have an overview in contrast to state law.

This does amount to two fairly nice wins for "our" side. We must now hope for victory in the WO/MEN's medical case, which could take some time. Their case has several new areas to open, and things haven't looked any better than now for their outcome.


Oh, and another thing: If you haven't learned to accept, by now, that American television news media is highly slanted, then let this be your wakeup call. It isn't a fair defense to say they have only so much time, and must bow to pressure. They do, but it's still fair to call them on it. People tune in to get news, and sponsors pay for eyeballs - but it's the money, not the government, that has the strongest influence on what they report.

If you're more inclined to think it's the government first, consider the "Madonna kiss" recently plastered everywhere. She's brilliant at getting attention. She knew all too well that would be the talk of the airwaves. Fox asked "Mancow" what he thought, and his explaination said it all. To paraphrase, he said that he had to admit first that it was disgusting (which was a political requirement for a conservative). Then he admitted it was also strangely exciting (which was, at least, a genuine answer).

That's why it was on the news everywhere! It literally didn't matter. Who cares what or who Madonna kisses. What hasn't she kissed? It sold product! It grabbed eyeballs! It was the bane of every right wing conservative, and exactly what they protest. Other conservatives pointed out that their children "had to watch that, and thought it was disgusting." The point is, they watched! They couldn't help it; it was fascinating, especially to prudish nerds that would never accept that behavior, but can't prevent themselves from watching closely so they can comment about it (and of course, stunned by the vision, subjected to the commercials afterwards).

Compared to bombs, Arnold, Bush bashing or Bush supporting, war speculation or the thought of uncountable billions of tax dollars spent, a decision in Alaska that isn't at the level to establish a firm precident just isn't going to sell product.

Don't get me wrong, it's worthy of news, to us. The people in charge of selling news (and that's how THEY see it) just aren't convinced enough of us are here! They don't want customers changing channels because the news doesn't interest them.

__________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge - Sounds like BS, until you realize Einstein said that.

 

DaDornta

OK, Since the court ruling that said an Alaskan is allowed to posess under 4oz for personal use in his/her house was only ruled by an appeals court, it STILL has to go to the state suppreme court right? When will this happen? How does this happen? I already know the state troopers aren't busting in AK, but local police still are.

Anyone know of anything related to this topic that's new? Anyone work for NORML and care to make a comment? I saw the post down below announcing the news, but I was wondering if we could get into a more "legal" discussion. What would the feds do if the state re-legalized it?

I have many questions about this...

Lothar121

State officials will appeal the discission. The supreme court will have the final word.

If it is relegalized, what will the feds do? Start a propoganda campaign, make examples out of a few people, stuff like that I'm sure.

Take a look at how the feds are dealing with the california medical marijuana situation, and apply it to recreational users. Will be worse, although I think hard given that Alaskans can only possess it legally in their home. It is harder to get around the 4th amendment inside your house.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project