cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Ruling Smokes Foes










  Marijuana Ruling Smokes Foes

Posted by CN Staff on August 30, 2003 at 08:29:51 PT
By Dan Rice, Staff Writer 
Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner  

Adults can legally possess as much as a quarter pound of marijuana in their home, the Alaska Court of Appeals declared in an opinion released Friday. The opinion, which stemmed from an appeal in a Fairbanks case, called personal marijuana use in the home by an adult a right guaranteed by the state constitution. "With regard to possession of marijuana by adults in their home for personal use, (the law) must be interpreted to prohibit only the possession of 4 ounces or more of marijuana," wrote Court of Appeals Judge David Stewart in the conclusion of the unanimous decision. 
Friday's decision relied primarily on a controversial 1975 Alaska Supreme Court opinion rendered in Ravin v. State. Written by the late Fairbanks law icon Jay Rabinowitz, the opinion declared that adults can possess marijuana for personal use in their home because the state's interest in prohibiting them from doing so is not great enough to violate a citizen's right to privacy. The appeals court declared that the Ravin decision was still the law despite a 1990 voter initiative that criminalized possession of all amounts of the drug. The court ruled that voters, who approved the criminalization measure by a 55-45 percent tally, did not have authority to change the state constitution. Friday's decision defined 4 ounces or less of marijuana as a personal-use amount that is permissible. Unless there's a successful appeal by the Attorney General's Office to the state Supreme Court, Friday's decision means that Alaska once again has the most liberal marijuana laws in the nation. The Supreme Court would essentially have to reverse itself to make it a crime again to possess 4 ounces or less of marijuana. Attorney General Gregg Renkes said in a press release that his office will petition the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. "Some of the court's language goes too far by drawing into question the constitutionality of the current law," Renkes said. The decision was made in the case of David Noy, 41, a North Pole man arrested at his Parkway Road house on July 27, 2001. The arrest occurred after a North Pole Police Department officer on patrol reported to other law enforcement that he could smell the odor of marijuana coming from Noy's residence, where Noy and a group of people were outside barbecuing salmon. After a debate about whether Noy would allow them in his home, officers searched Noy's house and found five immature plants and about 11 ounces of harvested marijuana in the form of buds, leaves and stalks. Officers put all the marijuana except the immature plants in a paper bag and sent it to the state's crime lab, according to background information contained in the Court of Appeals decision. But during trial, the prosecution never entered the bag into evidence, leaving the jury to rely on testimony and photographs to determine what was placed in the bag. After being instructed that the stalks of marijuana plants and fibers produced from the stalks do not count in determining the weight of marijuana, the jury found Noy not guilty of a charge of possessing more than 8 ounces of marijuana but guilty of a lesser charge of possessing less than 8 ounces.Renkes contends that District Court Judge Jane Kauvar improperly instructed the jury on how to measure the aggregate weight of marijuana, a mistake that allowed him to argue that he possessed less marijuana than he actually did. The personal use argument never should have been reached in the Noy case, Renkes said. In current statutes, 8 ounces of marijuana or more is considered to be an amount for commercial use, while anything less than 8 ounces is considered a personal use amount. But when the Legislature changed the marijuana statutes in light of the Ravin decision, 4 ounces was used as the dividing line between personal and commercial use. Friday's decision relied on the 4-ounce figure, claiming that the current marijuana statute must be interpreted to allow possession of up to 4 ounces of marijuana in the home. The decision dismissed Noy's misdemeanor conviction but allows the Fairbanks District Attorney's Office to retry the case if prosecutors think they can prove that Noy possessed more than 4 ounces of marijuana. He cannot be tried again for a charge of possessing more than 8 ounces because he has already been acquitted of that charge. Four ounces of weed carries a street value of about $1,200 to $1,600, said Sgt. Ron Wall, head of the Alaska Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Enforcement office in Fairbanks. "Hell, that would last a month or more," Wall said. Bill Satterberg, the victorious defense attorney who represented Noy, quipped that 4 ounces would last most of his clients "about a week; no, make that three days." While Noy's case is the first time a court with the clout of the Court of Appeals has upheld the Ravin decision, Noy is not the first defendant to argue that personal marijuana possession in the home is guaranteed by the state constitution as determined by the Ravin decision. In a June decision, Scott A. Thomas, another Satterberg client, convinced Fairbanks Superior Court Judge Richard Savell to throw out a misdemeanor pot conviction using the Ravin argument. The argument also worked for a defendant in a 1993 Ketchikan case. But since the 1990 voter initiative criminalized all marijuana possession, the Ravin argument has never made it past the trial-court level, preventing a high court from analyzing the conflict between Alaska's constitution and the state's marijuana laws. Satterberg, reached by phone in Luxembourg where he is meeting with clients and vacationing, said prosecutors have been diligent in keeping Ravin from reaching the state's appellate courts. When trial court judges dismissed cases on the Ravin issue in the past, state prosecutors have not appealed the decision to a higher court in an effort to prevent a new interpretation of the marijuana laws. He said it basically took 13 years for the right case to surface as a challenge to the 1990 voter initiative. "I think the state, from the state's perspective, made a very bad decision in prosecuting a case that probably should have been dismissed," Satterberg said of the Noy case.While the appeals court decision clarifies the issue of a statute that conflicts with the constitution, it also leaves many questions. Under current law, someone could possess as much as 4 ounces of pot in their home but could be arrested while transporting it there. "I think the next question that is going to arise out of this is your right to privacy in a vehicle if you're not using" marijuana, Satterberg said. The decision does allow someone to grow marijuana in their home, he said. Friday's decision applies only to Alaska law. Possession of all amounts of marijuana remains a crime under federal law, meaning that federal agents could still arrest someone for having small amounts of the drug in their home. Satterberg called the Noy opinion a confirmation of people's constitutional rights, regardless of their moral stance on marijuana. Gov. Frank Murkowski reacted differently. "Substance abuse continues to have a devastating impact on the people of Alaska and our communities," Murkowski said in a press release issued by his office. "It is regrettable that the Court of Appeals has, in essence, rejected the will of the people of Alaska who recriminalized the use of marijuana in a 1990 initiative." Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)Author: Dan Rice, Staff WriterPublished: Saturday, August 30, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc.Contact: letters newsminer.comWebsite: http://www.news-miner.com/ Related Articles:Alaska Court: Drug Ban Unconstitutionalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17184.shtmlPot Case Heads for an Appealhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16912.shtmlConstitutional Argument Not a New One http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16911.shtmlJudge Dismisses Pot Convictionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16757.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #56 posted by FoM on September 09, 2003 at 11:28:44 PT
TheHemperor 
Welcome to CNews. The GCW posted the links but he might not have seen your comment yet. Glad you dropped in. http://www.thehemperor.nethttp://www.nontesterslist.comhttp://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.comhttp://www.hemp4fuel.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by TheHemperor on September 08, 2003 at 23:34:53 PT
Thanks for bringing attention to my sites.
I wanted to post a thank you to whom ever started this thread. All of these sites you posted in this thread are mine.www.thehemperor.netwww.nontesterslist.comwww.pharmacratic-inquisition.comand not mentioned, www.hemp4fuel.comanyway, I noticed all the hits I was getting from here and decided to check it out.I've heard of this site, but never used it. I'll check in now and again.Thanks.JRI 
The Hemperor
The Hemperor
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by The GCW on September 03, 2003 at 04:46:13 PT
Canada - Alaska...
POT BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ALASKAN COURT RULES http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1322/a01.html?397 This news has hit this Cannadian newspaper. It should be included in more Canadian newspapers, because it illustrates how Cannadians may be attacked by the U.S. for decriminization, but the U.S. is already there. All Cannadians should know this.Is Cannada threatening to tighten its boarder now?PLUS, here is a LTE, that says it also... from Colorado, calling for the U.S. to back off.420US CO: PUB LTE: U.S. Errs On Pot Proclamationhttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1318/a05.html?397U.S. ERRS ON POT PROCLAMATION The U.S. response to Canada potentially decriminalizing personal use of cannabis ( "Patients in Canada are finally getting government-grown pot," SDN, Aug. 27 ) is a serious threat. As was quoted: "U.S. officials have warned of tighter border security if Canada takes that step." This is alarming for a number of reasons. Many American states have already decriminalized cannabis. The Alaska Court of Appeals unanimously declared in an opinion released Aug. 29 that adults can possess up to four ounces of marijuana for personal use in their home because the state's interest in prohibiting them from doing so is not great enough to violate a citizen's right to privacy. It's alarming since America exports billions of dollars worth of goods to Canada that would be affected by the Bush administration move in an economy already sorely compromised. The U.S. economy may not withstand further attacks from the Bush administration. Let's get this straight. After the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. tightened its borders. But if Canada decriminalizes cannabis, then we're going to really tighten our border? If this threat to our neighbor sounds inappropriate to you too, contact U.S. officials. Express the need to stop blackmailing Canada with punishment for being a sovereign country and doing what many American states have already done. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by ekim on September 02, 2003 at 20:15:28 PT
FoM good example of someone who cares
did not the gov appoint his child to the seat he was elected for ----whats the lesson in that?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by FoM on September 02, 2003 at 17:07:06 PT
Governor of Alaska Speaks Out
Governor Concerned About Re-legalization of Marijuana 
 September 2, 2003Governor Frank H. Murkowski reacted to today's decision of the Alaska court of appeals re-legalizing the use of marijuana in private homes by directing the Attorney General to review the case and make recommendations on how the state should proceed. "I am very concerned about this, as are many Alaskans," Murkowski said. "Substance abuse continues to have a devastating impact on the people of Alaska and on our communities," Murkowski said. "It is regrettable that the court of appeals has, in essence, rejected the will of the people of Alaska who re-criminalized the use of marijuana in a 1990 initiative. "The flow of marijuana, along with alcohol and other drugs, continues into our rural villages. Coincidentally, I have just received a report from the Department of Public Safety regarding the interdiction of drugs and alcohol being sent through the mail to rural villages, and, unfortunately, the incidence remains very high. Substance abuse is causing great harm to our rural s 
ociety, specifically our young people. "Alaskans who use marijuana should remember that its use or possession remains illegal under federal law," Murkowski said. "And parents who use marijuana should think about the example they set for their children." http://newspapers.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?show=localnews&pnpID=475&NewsID=486835&CategoryID=9945&on=0
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by Celephais on September 02, 2003 at 15:22:04 PT
QP in three days
yeah non-stop is a bit of a misnomer.... there were plenty of points where we were passed out from smoking so much. And the first day of the smoke-fest I missed a few hours due to work.Correct this wasn't the norm. Actually it was the first time I'd even seen a QP, and I've only seen a few QP's since
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by Dan B on September 02, 2003 at 10:36:27 PT
Celephais
My point exactly. It took seven people (total) smoking "nonstop" to consume a quarter pound in three days. And, I would bet that this was not the norm, either. That is, you sound like you are saying that this happened once, not that this is an ongoing phenomenon that occurs every time you get your hands on some cannabis. Thanks for the comment in the four-ounces-in-three-days issue. Think, now, how difficult it would be for just one person to consume the same amount in such a short period of time. Absurd, isn't it?Take care.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by FoM on September 02, 2003 at 10:26:10 PT
Celephais 
Oh my that's a lot! Did they have to kick start all of you then! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by Celephais on September 02, 2003 at 09:54:16 PT
Smoke a QP in three days? 
Yes it can be done..... I've done it... with SIX other people smoking NON-STOP
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by pedward on September 01, 2003 at 11:09:11 PT:
*****Motavation*****
I believe I would have to agree in principle to most of what you say. The privacy of a person who lives alone would naturally, be absolute.In such matters the government would indeed need to sneak a peak in order to LOCATE probable cause, your certainly not going to inform them yourself so they would have to commit an act of violation to gain their probable cause.The harm principle you described has I beleive some holes in it that are benificial to your privacy. The government should not be able to sneek a peak just to be sure you are honest John. They must be required to provide substantial probable cause from RELIABLE outside sources befor being allowed to " sneak a peak" and, this evidence must be of a nature to convince reasonable persons that you are engaged in an activity inside the home, that has a harmful effect on the public arena in order for the states interest to outweigh any right of privacy.As to how much you should be allowed to posses in you home I do not see any way to determine what that should be. Four ounces seems reasonable to me even though I would not be able to smoke that in a year, some people might.
Since potency of product drops off with age, having a room in your home that is stuffed to the ceiling with pot would seem to me to be an unreasonable amount for personal use. Reasonable people would naturally conclude that the only purpose of such a large quantity would be distribution, and therefor conspiracy would almost surely have to apply. Of course they would have to find out about it first would'nt they? And that is part of the issue!Now, alcohol and tobacco when used in the privacy of the home tend to extend their harmful effects to the general population in the folloeing ways, Alcohol reduces a persons inhabitions,physical motor controls and allows them to believe they are in control when in fact they are not. They will drink and then drive and, along with tobacco, the costs to the public in money is staggering, just the associated medical costs that the taxpayer must pick up the tab for is huge. Heart. Lung, Liver and kidney disease are associated illnesses that the public pays for along with higher insurance costs. All that asside, they are still legal. Marijuana does not have these issues!This brings me to cocain, People have been known to commit horrible atrocities while under the influence of cocain. cocain seems to severely alter ones perception of reality as does angel dust and perhaps even heroin if too much is used. The problem with these items as I see it is as follows, they significantly alter the perception of reality so that a person is unable to exercise restraint and remain in their home and, when they do wander out into society they are considerably more likely to cause immediate harm to the public than say tobacco or marijuana users. I am not sure that I would be willing to legalize these drugs without instituting extraordinary physical control methods against the user, say, a padded cell for the duration of their trip.Each substance must be evaluated individualy and treated accordingly, based on it's merits.I will agree however that the costs of prohibition are also high. Marijuana I am certain about. These others substances I am not to sure about, they seem to introduce some unpredictabilty that I might have issues with. However, although I am no expert on these substances I think it may be prudent to give greater consideration to them befor legalizing them, but as I said befor, I could be wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by Motavation on August 31, 2003 at 23:20:18 PT:
Cocaine is legal now too Right?
Following the reasoning of the court with regard to the Right of Privacy then it should extend to Cocaine and "other" drugs as well.and about this 4 oz limit. We need Johnny Cockran to argue if it doesn't fit you must acquit, if it fits in your home you must acquit. That is the "proper" amount that should be legal in the Privacy of your Home, whatever amount fits in your sweet Home.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by Motavation on August 31, 2003 at 23:06:13 PT:
TYPO
Comment #44, is supposed to read like this,
 2 people = the goberment would argue it needs to sneak and peek in your privacy to ensure NO child sex
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by Motavation on August 31, 2003 at 23:03:12 PT:
also
This type of "harm" principle would work because the goberment will not allow child sex.So reasoning, one person = no harm but to himself2 people = the goberment would argue it needs to sneak and peek in your privacy to ensure to child sex.Its probably a long stretch but seems worth Fighting for!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by Motavation on August 31, 2003 at 22:53:52 PT:
*****pedward*****
Beautifully explained. Please share your opinion on this thought of mine.I believe my Right to Privacy guarantees possessing 4 oz of marijuana because:A) a person who is by himself, in his own home must have more privacy expectation. i.e. a wife or "lover" shares a home with another person there is less expectancy to privacy because that other person has the same "access" to your living quaters or home, room, closet.but for a single person in his home their is Complete Expectancy to Privacy. No one has any "business" to interfer with that person's Privacy.B)I'm trying to equate this to a "harm" principle. The only example I can think of is the theory behind criminal charges. For example, one person acting by himslf can not be convicted of conspiracy to distribute "drugs". It takes 2 or more people to form a "conspiracy". I think their theory is that once to put a plan together and enlist others to "join" you, it somehow makes it more serious. Something around those lines, what do you think? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by pedward on August 31, 2003 at 22:01:33 PT:
*****Motavation*****
Motavation, thank you for your response.Although the Bill of Rights does not state a specific right to privacy I believe common sense dictates a need for inherent rights for human privacy. Having a refuge of privacy is a fundamental ingredient for prosperity, and allows us to securely express ourselves as individuals.We in Alaska are fortunate that our State Constitution includes a section that recognizes privacy. This has the benifit of adding some measure of control over the Alaska Supreme Courts interpretation of acts of privacy.Regarding your comment about the Supreme Court allowing homesexual sex in the privacy of your home. The court is granting a freedom of choice to individuals engaging in an activity that, although offensive to some, is nevertheless no ones business but that of the consenting adults, engaged in an activity that appears to effect no one but the participants. The court should extend this same level of privacy to a wider lattitude of behaviour that likewise effects only those consenting adults engaging in an activity in the PRIVACY OF THEIR HOMES.It appears to me that the Supreme Court doles out privacy rights according to their interpretation of the Constitution. This interpretation is no doubt clouded by each of these Justices life experiences, sense of right & wrong, personal beliefs, and prejudices. It is therefor flawed. Likely the only permanent solution is a legislative one that expands, or clarifies the constitutional privacy issue, or perhaps not.As to how a competent attorney would argue the issue I can only imagine him or her having to read between the lines of the Bill of Rights and lead the Supreme Court by its nose to the right conclusion. It has been my experience in dealing with many state agencies in Alaska that this course of action is the only way to prevail over the educated elite that presume the right to help us MANAGE our private lives.It is almost certainly a problem that must solved by men of greater insight and wisdom than I.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by FoM on August 31, 2003 at 18:38:21 PT
Excerpts of State v. Noy
Map: Alaska Decision Upholding and Following Ravin v. State 
    
 Excerpts of State v. NoyThe Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Ravin [v. State] that the right of privacy codified in article I, section 22 of [the Alaska] constitution protects the right of adults to possess marijuana in their homes for personal use. When a statute conflicts with a provision of our state constitution, the statute must give way. See Falcon v. Alaska Public Offices Comm’n, 570 P.2d 469, 480 (Alaska 1977); Ravin, 537 P.2d at 511. Thus, a statute which [sic] purports to attach criminal penalties to constitutionally protected conduct is void.On a deeper level, the question is whether the voters of Alaska can, through the initiative process, abrogate a constitutional ruling of the Alaska Supreme Court - in particular, the court’s ruling in Ravin that article I, section 22 of our state constitution protects an adult’s right to possess marijuana in the home for personal use. The answer to this question is found in the Alaska Constitution itself. Article XII, section 11 states that the people of this state, through the ballot initiative process, may exercise “the lawmaking powers assigned to the legislature” (subject to the limitations codified in article XI of the constitution). That is, the initiative process constitutes a method by which the people of this state can directly enact legislation.But just as the statutes enacted through the normal legislative process must not violate the constitution, the statutes enacted by ballot initiative must not violate the constitution. See Alaskans for Legislative Reform v. State, 887 P.2d 960, 962, 966 (Alaska 1994); Citizens Coalition for Tort Reform v. McAlpine, 810 P.2d 162 , 168 (Alaska 1991). Thus, even though the voters enacted AS 11.71.060(a)(1) through the initiative process, the constitutionality of this statute must be assessed in the same way as if it had been enacted through the normal legislative process. And, as we have said, this statute contravenes the constitutional right of privacy as interpreted by our supreme court in Ravin — because it declares that any possession of marijuana by adults in their homes for personal use is a crime.State v. Noy, (Alaska Ct. of Apps.) [Slip Op. No. 1897, August 29, 2003] at 6-7. Before the marijuana laws were amended by voter initiative in 1990, the Alaska Legislature had (by statute) defined the amount of marijuana that adults could lawfully possess in their home for personal use. Under the pre-1990 statutes governing marijuana possession, an adult could be prosecuted for possessing four ounces or more of marijuana in their home for personal use. Possession of less than this amount was not a crime. See former AS 11.71.060 and AS 11.71.070. There are no appellate cases testing the constitutionality of the legislature’s four-ounce dividing line. However, Noy has not argued that this four-ounce dividing line violates Ravin. We note, moreover, that article I, section 22 entrusts the legislature with the duty of implementing the constitutional right of privacy. Given the language of article I, section 22, and given the deference that we should pay to the decision of a co-equal branch of government, we conclude that the legislature’s four-ounce dividing line is presumptively constitutional under Ravin. * * *The pre-1990 version of the statute contained a four[-]ounce ceiling on marijuana possession in the home by adults for personal use - a ceiling that is presumptively constitutional. The 1990 voter initiative expanded the scope of AS 11.71.060(a) by eliminating this four-ounce ceiling and declaring that all possession of marijuana by adults in their homes for personal use was illegal. In this new version, the statute violates article I, section 22 of the constitution. To make the statute conform to the constitution again, we must return it to its pre-1990 version. * * * AS 11.71.060(a)(1) remains constitutional to the extent that it prohibits possession of four[-]ounces or more of marijuana. Restricted in this fashion, AS 11.71.060(a)(1) remains enforceable.State v. Noy, (Alaska Ct. of Apps.) [Slip Op. No. 1897, August 29, 2003] at 8-9. Judge Kauvar properly instructed the jury that “[m]arijuana means the seeds, leaves, buds, and flowers of the plant[.]” See AS 11.71.900 (14). But Judge Kauvar also instructed the jury that the aggregate weight of a live marijuana plant was “the weight of the marijuana when reduced to its commonly used form.” Based on this instruction, Noy urged the jury to consider only the aggregate weight of the “buds” in determining how much marijuana he had possessed. But the “commonly used form” of marijuana is only relevant when a person is charged with possessing live marijuana plants. See Maness v. State, 49 P.3d 1128, 1134 (Alaska App. 2002) (quoting Gibson v. State, 719 P.2d 687, 690 (Alaska App. 1986)) (the “commonly used form” language of AS 11.71.080 “refers to the method of calculating the aggregate weight of live marijuana plants”). Noy was only charged with possessing harvested marijuana. Therefore, in the event of a retrial, assuming the State again charges Noy with possessing only harvested marijuana, the district court should not instruct the jury on how to determine the aggregate weight of live marijuana, or allow the parties to argue about the definition of the “commonly used form” of marijuana.State v. Noy, (Alaska Ct. of Apps.) [Slip Op. No. 1897, August 29, 2003] at 11-12.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by Motavation on August 31, 2003 at 18:36:20 PT:
*****Pedward*****
Thank You Pedward,It seems to me that any cliam to privacy by way of the Bill of Rights is simply implied or infered, but NOT STATED!Using this decision in combination with the US supreme court decision allowing homosexual sex in the Privacy of your Home, should prove to be very interesting.I remember reading an article that said hopefully the potheads will win before the "lassie lovers". Clearly or Hopefully, American Citizens outside of Alaska have a "Right to Privacy" as well, becuase if you didn't, why would police need a warrant?I believe you Pedward. I'm just trying to "MAKE" a link. How a Lawyer would try to argue that all citizens have a Right to Privacy in their Homes. Article the sixth [Amendment IV] 
 
The Right Of The People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, Shall Not Be Violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by Motavation on August 31, 2003 at 18:10:41 PT:
*****THE (420) GCW*****
Hello Green Collar Worker,I am very pleased that, You are taking my perspective. I tried to give it to you a long time ago. 
I hope you improve on our freshly shared perspective, because I read alot of your posts, and to be brutaly honest, your posts are enough to drive a Cannabis Atheist absolutely crazy.Its all good though. 
Peace 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by pedward on August 31, 2003 at 17:34:09 PT:
Motavation, A Constitutional Comparison.
The Bill of Rights does not in fact provide for greater privacy protection than the Alaska Constitution. 
I will try to explain how I have drawn this conclusion.
 
I have read the Bill of Rights, and no-where can I find any text that specifically grants a "Right to Privacy" for the individual.The fourth amendment appears to me to simply limit the government to certain methods and/or rules for seizing you, your property, your papers, and person. You know, PROBABLE CAUSE, REASONABLE SUSPICION, OATH OF AFFIRMATION, and so on. As stated in comment 34 these are of course bogus methods, (especially in todays Justice system) to circumvent our protections from the government.The Alaska Constitution however, has one very specific, and, very powerful difference that makes it's privacy protection far superior to the U S constitution.
 
"SECTION 22. RIGHT OF PRIVACY. The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section."This section of the Alaska Constitution clearly states in the text that a " Right to Privacy." exists, and has the effect of setting our privacy rights in stone. The U S Bill of Rights contains no text that even remotely resembles this section of the Alaska Constitution.It seems to me that any cliam to privacy by way of the Bill of Rights is simply implied or infered, but NOT STATED!Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution is very likely the clause that allowed the Alaska Supreme court to reach it's 1975 landmark decision in "Ravin v Alaska."However,if I am mistaken I would welcome correction by way of facts.Alaskan supporter for legalization.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by FoM on August 31, 2003 at 11:28:53 PT
Thanks Gary
That's great news!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by Gary Storck on August 31, 2003 at 11:22:43 PT
Vigil completed without arrest by Jim Miller
Just heard from Jim Miller. He returned to Congressman Pallone's home and picketed without being hassled or arrested by the local police. He is amazed, and on his way back home.
http://cheryldcmemorial.org/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Jose Melendez on August 31, 2003 at 10:00:44 PT
usa today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-31-alaska-pot_x.htm
Same article in USAToday
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by The GCW on August 31, 2003 at 07:45:50 PT
Motavation,
420= Your perspective is fresh. It is very good, I'm glad You shared that with Us.I will find a way, perhaps, to include Your perspective in My next LTE.Now, Your perspective is My perspective.That is what C-news is all about. Isn't it?420So: Adults can Possess Marijuana for personal use in their Home because the UNITED State's Interest in "Prohibiting" them from doing so Is Not GREAT enough to VIOLATE a Citizen's RIGHT to Privacy. By way of the Bill Of Rights.420 & Your comment persueded Me to search further and here is a site I found that seems worthy.The Pharmacratic Inquisition
http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/ (with pics.)
Thousands of years ago, in the premonarchic era, psychedelic sacraments where publicly known and respected for their ability to bring forth the divine, Yahweh, God, The Great Spirit, etc. by the many cultures who used them. Often, the entire tribe or community would partake in the Entheogenic rights. These rights were often used in initiation into adulthood, for healing, to help guide the community in the decision process, and to bring the direct religious experience to anyone seeking it, that might take these sacraments properly. Psychedelic plant sacraments, as well as fertility rights and astrological knowledge, were anthropomorphized into human/god like beings so their stories and practices could be past down for generations. Weather changes over millenniums caused environmental changes that altered the available foods and plant sacraments available in the local vicinity. If a tribe lost its shamanic leader, all of their knowledge of their sacraments would be lost. As years became centuries, and centuries turned into millenniums, many of the ancient shamanic practices were lost, becoming myth and power hungry dogmatic religion. Many of these ancient Entheogenic and fertility rights are still practiced today, though the knowledge of their origins, cause, and purpose is all but lost except by a remaining few. Sects were created that kept the secrets of the direct religious experience from the common people. Sometimes this was done by the power hungry to maintain power, and other times this was done by shaman themselves to keep tradition alive.Crusades were fought, Inquisitions were enacted, and the so-called "Pagan" or country people lost their lives for their Shamanic beliefs. Often, the ruling party hypocritically used the knowledge of the Psychedelic Sacraments for themselves. The tradition of the suppression of the direct religious experience did not end in the middle ages, as the suppression of the experience comes right into "modern times" with the so-called War on Drugs. Not all ancient Shamanic societies vanished. Many survived into the 21st century, and still hide their religious beliefs, as they have had to do for thousands of years. Shamanic traditions struggle to survive in North and South America, Africa, Asia, Siberia, and Australia, as even today with "Freedom of Religion" these people still live under... The Pharmacratic InquisitionPharmaco-, a combining form meaning "drug" used in the formation of compound words: pharmacology, 
-crat, a combining form meaning "ruler," "member of a ruling body," "advocate of a particular form of rule," used in the formation of compound words" autocrat; technocrat. Cf. -cracy. [ , Gk -krates as in autokrates.
Inquisition (in'kwe zish' en, ing'-), n. 1. an official investigation, esp. one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments. 2. any harsh, difficult, or prolonged questioning. 3. the act of inquiring; inquiry; research. 4. an investigation, or process of inquiry. 5. a judicial or official inquiry. 6. the finding of such an inquiry. 7. the document embodying the result of such inquiry. 8. (cap.) Rom. Cath. Ch. A. a former special tribunal, engaged chiefly in combating and punishing heresy. Cf. Holy Office. b. See Spanish Inquisition. [1350-400; ME inquisicio(u)n Pharmacratic Inquisition nov. verb.
- The Christian persecution of archaic religions based on sacramental ingestion of entheogenic plants and the consequent personal access to ecstatic states; whose first great victory was the destruction of the Eleusinian Mysteries at the end of the fourth century; which then reached a gruesome climax in the persecution of witches in the Middle Ages; and which continues in today's Pharmacratic State in the guise of a public health 'War on Drugs.'
1994 Ott Ayahuasca Analogues, 12. May the Entheogenic Reformation prevail over the Pharmacratic Inquisition, leading to the spiritual rebirth of humankind at Our Lady Gæa's breasts, from which may ever copiously flow the amrita, the ambrosia, the ayahuasca of eternal life!
Source: The Age of Entheogens & The Angel's Dictionary by Jonathan OttThis was a link from: http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/ It also includes this link: U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights : http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/Constitution.html 
Banned under George Bush's Patriot Act. We've reserved a copy of the rare Constitution and Bill of Rights for you to read right here. A Complete, Indexed guide to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other Amendments.http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/health.html 
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un american and despotic and have no place in a republic. The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom." 
--- Benjamin Rush, George Washington's personal doctor and a signer of the Declaration of Independence &Number of physicians in the US:
700,000.Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year:
120,000.Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US:
80,000,000.Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups):
1,500.Accidental deaths per gun owner:
0.0000188Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.From: http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/health.html And from: http://www.nontesterslist.com/nontesters/ 
“If we choose to violate the rights of the innocent in order to discover and act against the guilty, then we have transformed our country into a police state and abandoned one of the fundamental tenants of a free society. In order to win the war on drugs, we must not sacrifice the life of the Constitution in the battle.” 
~US District Judge H. Lee Sarokin~Understanding Your Rights: :
Do you know the real reason for the term "War on Drugs"? I'll give you a step by step break down of the Bill of Rights, and how Drug Testing and the "War on Drugs" have destroyed your 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th & 10th amendment rights. http://www.nontesterslist.com/nontesters/ntlrights.html  I have not used it but this link contains a list of employers who do NOT test for drugs.Does anyone carry a watch that does not change time: it is always set at 4:20?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by John Tyler on August 31, 2003 at 07:21:19 PT
Reported on the internet 
Has anyone seen this news on the regular media outlets? I haven't seen anything yet. This is big news, yet it doesn't seem to be reported.Then again, if it is hushed up, maybe the feds won't throw a "sh*t fit" over it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by mayan on August 31, 2003 at 06:11:23 PT
Go, Alaska!
This is certainly a pleasant surprise! The cracks in the dam are becoming huge holes! Here's a related article...Court affirms right to possess pot:
http://www.adn.com/front/v-akcom/story/3799677p-3825431c.htmlGo, Jim!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 22:28:19 PT
Vigil to resume in AM
Jim has headed off to Pete's to rest and retun in the AM to resume picketing and await the police response.I'll have an update in the AM, and will be posting pictures, eyc. at the link below.
http://cheryldcmemorial.org/walk_vigil.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 21:53:33 PT
Thanks Gary
It seems that Jim has everything under control. He has talked with the police and they know he isn't going to cause any problems and will go if asked until morning. Thank you for the update.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 21:43:46 PT
Jim Miller update
Jim reports a visit by the police responding to a call about his presence picketing Rep. Pallone's.They were professional and understanding, but said they would return and ask him to leave or be arrested if they get another call. Jim said he would leave if asked, but would return at 7AM to be arrested, so Pete could film it.So, the vigil continues in the Jersey night...
http://cheryldcmemorial.org/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Motavation on August 30, 2003 at 21:39:39 PT:
WHAT ABOUT MY BILL OF RIGHTS?
"personal marijuana use in the home by an adult a right guaranteed by the state constitution."Someone please scratch out the word state in the above sentence. There is somthing completly wrong with this article. Why is their no referrence to the Bill of Rights? 
Why is their no comparison between the state constition and the bill of rights?Written by the late Fairbanks law icon Jay Rabinowitz, the opinion declared that Adults can Possess Marijuana for personal use in their Home because the State's Interest in "Prohibiting" them from doing so Is Not GREAT enough to VIOLATE a Citizen's RIGHT to Privacy. I need to hire Johnny Cockran to argue that the federal government interest is not great enough to VIOLATE MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY.This should be a "no Brainer". Any "Competent" Lawyering Attorney should be able to aruge that the Bill Of Rights provides more "PRIVACY" protections than any of the states do.Personally, I find it ironic that 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 men can come to my home and have homosexual sex but someone can't smoke a dead plant in the privacy of thier home! Repulsive to say the least! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 19:27:33 PT
Thanks For The Update Gary
Is Jim taking care of his health? He must be exhausted.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 19:20:31 PT
Jim Miller still on the picket
Just heard from Jim again. No police so far as of 10:20 EDT. His brother will be sending me some photos from the march which I will put up on the http://cheryldcmemorial.org/ site. So he's hanging in there...GO JIM!
Cheryl Miller Memorial Project
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by gloovins on August 30, 2003 at 19:08:02 PT
great link, hip bird
My kinda pet! j/k..hehe
http://www.weird-wide-web.com/files/45.jpg
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #24 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 17:57:23 PT

Gary
That's smart. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 17:53:31 PT

FoM 
No, his brother and Pete Christopher, who produced the Cheryl video, are across the street. They are thinking if the cops tell Jim to leave, he will leave and come back at 6 AM when it is light so Pete can film an arrest if there is one.
Help the Memorial!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 17:51:25 PT

A Song About Alaska a Little Modified

North to AlaskaGo north, the rush is onBig Sam left Seattle in the year of ninety-twoWith George Pratt, his partner and brother Billy, tooThey crossed the Yukon River and found the Acapulco GoldBelow that old white mountain, just a little southeast of NomeSam crossed the majestic mountains to the valleys far belowHe talked to his team of huskies as he mushed on through the snowWith the Northern Lights a runnin' wild in the land of the midnight sunYes Sam McCord was a mighty manin the year of nineteen-oneWhere the river is windin'Big Nuggets they're findin'North to AlaskaGo north, the rush is on
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 17:41:44 PT

Gary
Jim isn't by himself is he?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by cloud7 on August 30, 2003 at 17:17:26 PT

This is huge
Although, Im sure you have already, everyone needs to seriously consider what this means. "Unless there's a successful appeal by the Attorney General's Office to the state Supreme Court, Friday's decision means that Alaska once again has the most liberal marijuana laws in the nation. The Supreme Court would essentially have to reverse itself to make it a crime again to possess 4 ounces or less of marijuana."Unless this unlikely appeal to the supreme court goes through, the United States will have a state with LEGAL cannabis. Im in shock, Im eager to watch this develop. Im excited, I really cant believe this is happening.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 17:16:30 PT

Jim outside of Pallone's house now!
I'm on the phone with Jim right now. He thinks he may get arrested. He is picketing in front of his house.No cops yet, but he is expecting it. He's ready if he has to. He doesn't have to protect Cheryl this time. T-storms have passed, it's about 72 degrees. 
Donate
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 16:37:07 PT

Gary
Please keep us posted. I appreciate knowing how it is going. We just sent in our contribution thru NORML's web site in our name and in CNews name. I hope it helps.http://cheryldcmemorial.org/donate.htm
Cheryl Miller Memorial Project Donation 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #16 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 16:10:02 PT

Jim Miller close to end of walk
I spoke to Jim again by cell. He was waiting out some rain a little more than a mile away from Rep. Frank Pallone's house. He should be setting off soon to complete the walk and begin his overnight vigil. He said a family picnicking along the boardwalk also gave him a standing ovation as he passed. Good support along the way. The people are with us.I should be hearing from him again, and will update again. It's likely law enforcement may not appreciate the vigil.
Cheryl Miller Memorial Project
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by The GCW on August 30, 2003 at 14:23:49 PT

Gary, thank You for the updates.
"He said a dozen guys playing football on the beach stopped and gave him a standing ovation as he passed by.""A Big Standing Ovation for Jim Miller!"It's a minor detail, but it brought a few tears, when I read those statements.420420420420And yes, I can not move to Alaska, but I can sure dream of going there for a few days. Does this law also apply to the privacy of Your own motel room?If John P(ee) decides to change His ways... then Alaska is the place for Him, too. Of course the only thing the Bush empire would be interested in about Alaska is drilling for oil and caging those humans for using a plant.Sure beats pork, doesn't it?(maybe I should start at the beginning)One time I was on a plane sitting behind 2 guys that were clergy and the conversation came up where the Catholic Priest asked the Rabbi, if He ever ate pork? The priest talked the Rabbi into being honest and so the Rabbi said, Yes...But then the Rabbi turned to the Priest and asked Him if He ever had sex with a girl? And when the Priest finally admitted, Yes, the Rabbi said, IT SURE BEATS PORK DOESN'T IT.(That's a joke son.)
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by Petard on August 30, 2003 at 14:07:15 PT

Might have to go
And I might even rent a place on the street my Aunt named after me in Anchorage (she also named streets after her kids, my sisters, a couple of other cousins). My Aunt used have a large section of what's now part of the city of Anchorage homesteaded. She sold it to the city with the provision she got to name the streets they put in. Some of my cousins still live up there and maintain the original house that looks out onto the big glacier in the city. I know for a fact some of the cousins used to grow before it was illegalized. Plus if a person lives up there for a few years they become eligible to recieve the oil Superfund $ paid out annually and get a free college education at Univ. of Alaska. What could be better? Free education, free annual payout of cash, and grow your own. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 12:21:16 PT

What Happens To Those Convicted Since 1990?
Can they get their records cleared?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #12 posted by AlvinCool on August 30, 2003 at 12:15:30 PT

I can't believe it!
WOW 4 ounces legal as of today in Alaska!!!!! WOOOOOHOOOOI was just trying to find out where to go for my vacation. Later gotta go find me some Alaska trips!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #11 posted by E_Johnson on August 30, 2003 at 12:09:42 PT

Applause for Jim Miller
I'm glad he's getting such support. Most Americans are humane in their outlook even if they disagree on politics.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 11:32:55 PT

Gary
I have great respect for Jim and I've never even met him. He is going far beyond the call of duty. Cheryl would be so proud.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 11:29:25 PT

FoM
Just heard from Jim. He is a little ahead of schedule, with 8 miles to go. He said he's really tired. Rain is threatening too, and it's fairly humid. He said a dozen guys playing football on the beach stopped and gave him a standing ovation as he passed by.Staying awake overnight for the vigil will be tough, too.A Big Standing Ovation for Jim Miller!
Jim's route for the walk and more info
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 11:13:09 PT

Gary
Thank you for the update. That's a long walk. When I was in my teens I had to lead an injured horse about that far because she wouldn't load on a trailer and I had muscles hurting that I didn't even know I had. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by Dan B on August 30, 2003 at 11:07:28 PT

4 ounces in 3 days?
"Bill Satterberg, the victorious defense attorney who represented Noy, quipped that 4 ounces would last most of his clients 'about a week; no, make that three days.'"How can a statement like this possibly help us? It makes cannabis users out to be ridiculously addicted to smoking cannabis nonstop, which is far from the case for most people that I know who smoke it. Frankly, I would argue that any amount is a "personal use" amount as long as a person intends to smoke it only in the confines of his or her home. But arguing that four ounces in three days is the norm for Mr. Satterberg's clients seems counterproductive at best.Look, if you are smoking four ounces of cannabis in three days, you are smoking way too much. Back when I used to smoke it daily, I would go through two ounces in a month. That was a lot, and I cut back. Conserve a little, and you'll find that a little goes a lot further. The exception to the rule may be medical patients who use enough to calm their symptoms, but most of these patients also say that they use "just a little."I realize that Satterberg's comment was a "quip," but I really don't appreciate it when either side of the argument reinforces the old "pothead" stereotype.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by Gary Storck on August 30, 2003 at 11:05:58 PT

Jim Miller update
Jim Miller is in the middle of his 26-mile fundraising walk in New Jersey and is walking along the Jersey shore along the boardwalk, on his way to Rep. Frank Pallone's HOUSE for an overnight vigil. A photo from earlier today is posted at www.cheryldcmemorial.org. Jim reports he is tired and sore, but his support crew has been helpful, and people have been receptive.
Cheryl Miller Memorial Project
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by BigDawg on August 30, 2003 at 10:56:43 PT

My guess is...
... that the 4 oz limit comes from the words "personal use." They want to have a limit... and with a stretch, you get someone deciding what personal use is and they set such a limit.It IS a stretch. Anyone who grows for their own stash could easily want a pound or 2 to get them thru a year... or until the next harvest. 1/4 pound won't cut it in many situations... but they felt they needed a limit. Likely to keep a strangle hold on commercial ops... which is rediculaous of course with legal personal possession. It HAS to come from somewhere.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on August 30, 2003 at 10:29:23 PT

I could live in Alaska
Yes I could. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 10:22:30 PT

4 Ounces
How can they determine what is 4 ounces? That has always baffled me. If they would weigh a plant it would weigh much more then 4 ounces. The only weight should be in dry flowers just like any kind of fruit from a tree and I'm sure they don't do that. You don't eat the whole peach tree but they don't understand it I guess.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #2 posted by WolfgangWylde on August 30, 2003 at 10:17:53 PT

I've read this thing twice...
...and for the life of me I can't understand how they came up with 4 ounce limit. Seems to me Ravin sets no limits at all.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 30, 2003 at 08:39:44 PT

More Detailed Article on The Alaska Case
Go Alaska!
[ Post Comment ]







  Post Comment