cannabisnews.com: Governor Concerned about Re-legalization 





Governor Concerned about Re-legalization 
Posted by CN Staff on September 03, 2003 at 10:55:15 PT
News Story
Source: Capital City Weekly 
Governor 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 society, 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." Complete Title: Governor Concerned about Re-legalization of MarijuanaSource: Capital City Weekly (AK)Published: September 2, 2003Copyright: 2003 Capital City WeeklyContact: editor capweek.comWebsite: http://www.capweek.comRelated Articles:Marijuana Ruling Smokes Foeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17189.shtmlAlaska 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.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #11 posted by Motavation on September 03, 2003 at 20:56:02 PT:
I," READ IT"!
Thank you THE GCW,
I wanna say that I am Honored to be in the company of all who post. You all are my Happy Family. The Young & Restless Legalizers. "since 911, there has been a big effort to tighten the border, so much so, that You would think they done everything they can to tighten it. (like fish vagina, which is water tight) but the cannabis prohibitionists, are not satisfied, when it comes to cannabis, and will then tighten it more than what is needed to secure America’s safety from deadly attack, and will protect Us from the devil weed even more. Cannabis is deadlier that any old World Trade Center attack, as We know..." THE GCW said.I wonder when we are going to build the Great Victory Patriot Wall to keep out Terrorist with their Canuck "Crack" of Marijuana pot. This new Great Victory Patriot Wall to over take the Great Wall of China.
This got me thinking, Its only a matter of time before the Salmon begin smuggling Cannabis in their "water tight vagina's". and then.......I was thinking about that picture showing What cannabis looks like Packaged for Medical purposes in the Pharmacies......then I thought about the question FoM asked, "If someone gets a prescription from their Doctor and lives in Amsterdam and wants to visit the U.S. How much will they be allowed to carry with them? Is their a limited to how often a prescription can be filled? Like once a week maybe?I wonder if the Minister of Tourism plans of Distributing Medical Marijuana in a look a like dildo dispensor. I wonder if sick, dying people would resort to such extrem's. You don't have to answer that question, I know the answer to that. If I lived in the Netherlands and I wasn't married or didn't have a girlfriend, I wouldn't visit America. Hope you got a good laugh,
Peace
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by John Tyler on September 03, 2003 at 18:47:13 PT
It is LEGAL
The Governor here is obviously operating under some misconceptions. First responsible cannabis use is not abuse, and up to four ounces is now legal. For those that don’t understand, like the Governor, that means LEGAL, not against the law. Another thing, the Judges were deciding on a point of law with regard to the state constitution which has a written section (Section 22) which guarantees citizens’ privacy. The constitution is the higher authority. If a law doesn’t square with it, then the law is unconstitutional. If the Alaskan prohibitionists can’t do some serious “arm twisting” on the State Supreme court, they will have to have a constitutional change to limit freedom and individual privacy (which sounds very chilling and Naziesque doesn’t it?). As far as the governor is concerned the will of the people is being done. The people want freedom, not his version of oppression and thought control.  Way to go Alaska! You people up north (Alaska and Canada) have amazed me. You inspire us all to higher aspirations.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by The GCW on September 03, 2003 at 18:24:07 PT
Motavation & Afterburner,
Motavation, asks, Didn't someone from Cnews, coin the word "(re)legalization"?The GCW, remembers this was coined perhaps a year and a half ago... but let's take a look...From the C-news archive: 
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/1/thread1039.shtml April 06, 1999http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/1/thread1216.shtml April 29, 1999http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9297.shtml April 07, 2001But the oldest recorded use of “Relegalize” on MAP’s archive goes back to:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n416/a01.html?2383 Pubdate: 18 Sep 1997 By Laura Kriho, a very special person to the cannabis activism effort. If You do not know Her story, READ IT, because it is awesome. By the way, this one is in the Boulder Weekly, a very good rag, helping with ending the war on cannabis, still! This link titled: Jury Nullification: A Power or a Thought Crime? is her story in Her own words, but You can find a lot more here at C-news and on MAP.The phrase: not just legalize, re-legalize, is catchy and informative. I use it Myself.Also: Bob Hart-Tustin in His LTE: How To End The Drug War / Tue, 14 Jul 1998 IN Orange County, Cal. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n566/a03.html?2383 THEN, there is “RELEGALIZATION”:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n334/a04.html?2570 Wed, 20 Aug 1997420Afterburner,You stated: 
I never did understand this one: "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?" --U.S. ERRS ON POT PROCLAMATION 420To help explain it, ( I’m not sure if You really don’t understand it... but are stating it to make a point...) since 911, there has been a big effort to tighten the border, so much so, that You would think they done everything they can to tighten it. (like fish vagina, which is water tight) but the cannabis prohibitionists, are not satisfied, when it comes to cannabis, and will then tighten it more than what is needed to secure America’s safety from deadly attack, and will protect Us from the devil weed even more. Cannabis is deadlier that any old World Trade Center attack, as We know...& From The Green Collar Worker: Addressing this story, titled: “Governor Concerned about Re-legalization”
I’d like to state and title Our story:Citizens concerned about cannabis prohibition
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by overtoke on September 03, 2003 at 16:11:23 PT:
If he has a problem with it...
It's obvious he's not intelligent enough to hold the position of 'governor' Talk about setting a bad example.Let him know how you feel.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by afterburner on September 03, 2003 at 15:29:10 PT:
Crocodile Tears
"I am very concerned about this, as are many Alaskans," [Governor Frank H.] Murkowski said."Alaskans should also remember the federal laws are unconstitutional and the example the parents are setting is that you have the right to consume LEGAL substances RESPONSIBLY," cloud7 said.The Governor on the other hand seems to be totally ignorant of the difference between use and abuse, between cannabis and gasoline or alcohol.I never did understand this one: "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?" --U.S. ERRS ON POT PROCLAMATION Makes you feel really safe, eh?ego transcendence follows ego destruction, insert tongue into cheek--if Uncle Sam decriminalizes, it's voter ignorance and legalizer sham, but if Canada decriminalizes, the sky is falling, it's raining weapons of mass destruction, BC Bud--remove tongue!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Motavation on September 03, 2003 at 15:20:58 PT:
Didn't someone from Cnews,
coin the word "(re)legalization"?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by The GCW on September 03, 2003 at 14:08:47 PT
Will Canada tighten its border?
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 #4 posted by FoM on September 03, 2003 at 13:40:06 PT
darwin
Congratulations on the new baby! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by darwin on September 03, 2003 at 12:31:25 PT
Makes sense to me.
Who does Alaska border? The Canabians! That's a long cold border to put patrols on. It makes sense that Alaskans would want to ignore prohibition, as they share more with Canada than the US. It's good to be back reading C-News. My wife and I just had our first baby and all went well. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by goneposthole on September 03, 2003 at 11:32:05 PT
the will of the people
versus inalienable God-given rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even if it means getting high sometimes. Would Alaskans vote to prohibit alcohol comsumption for personal use? The 'will of the people' translates to 'imposition of will'. It is healthier to smoke pot than it is to drink milk mixed with gasoline, like some Inuit were doing in Canada about a year ago or so. Legal cannabis means less substance abuse and a plethora of social problems out the window with the bat of a eye. A simple solution for the unmanageable problems of substance abuse. I will surmise that the people of Alaska and everywhere will find legalized cannabis more desirable than they uncontrollable 'War on Drugs'. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by cloud7 on September 03, 2003 at 11:05:23 PT
Im more concerned about the people who are caged
What does everyone think? Will the supreme court let this stand? Other than large grow ops, how much will federal control really matter since it is usually the local cops making the arrests and profiting from them?"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." Alaskans should also remember the federal laws are unconstitutional and the example the parents are setting is that you have the right to consume LEGAL substances RESPONSIBLY.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment