cannabisnews.com: Appeals Court Denies Marijuana Case Appeal





Appeals Court Denies Marijuana Case Appeal
Posted by CN Staff on November 15, 2003 at 17:44:17 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press 
Anchorage -- The Alaska Court of Appeals has rejected a request by the state to reconsider a decision allowing adults to possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use. In a ruling Friday, the court denied Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes' petition for a rehearing in the case of David Noy, a North Pole man who was arrested in 2001 after he was found with marijuana in his home.
Renkes said the next step is to ask the Alaska Supreme Court take up the case. In August, the appeals court reversed Noy's conviction and ruled that Alaskans have the right to possess less than four ounces of marijuana in their homes for personal use. The court based its ruling on the broad right to privacy in Alaska's Constitution, as interpreted in the 1975 landmark Alaska Supreme Court case of Ravin vs. State. The Ravin decision had led to the legalization of at-home use of small amounts of marijuana for several years, giving Alaska the most liberal pot laws in the nation. That ended in 1990 when Alaska voters passed an initiative to criminalize the possession of all pot. But this summer's ruling in the Noy case interpreted the Ravin decision as meaning that Alaska's constitutional right to privacy is so strong that the voters _ and the Legislature _ are restricted from just deciding that pot should be illegal in the home. "The state contends that this view of Ravin is fundamentally flawed and that Ravin did not announce a constitutional restriction on the government's lawmaking power ... we are convinced that the state's interpretation of Ravin is wrong," the state appeals court said Friday in its ruling on the Noy marijuana case. Dean Guaneli, the chief assistant attorney general, responded that the appeals court misunderstood arguments made by the state. Despite what appeared to give all indications of a negative ruling for the state, the attorney general's office issued a press release Friday classifying the decision as at least a partial victory. While the decision denied a rehearing, the release states, it did give the state permission to challenge the Ravin decision. Guaneli said the office based this interpretation of the decision on the last sentence, which reads "the state remains free in the future to challenge the continuing vitality of Ravin." William Satterberg, the Fairbanks lawyer who is opposing the attorney general in the Noy case, said the Friday appeals court ruling gave the state no power to challenge the Ravin decision that it didn't already have. But Guaneli said the state was worried that the appeals courts ruling on the Noy case was couched in terms so ironclad that the state might be unable to go back and attack the Ravin decision. The ultimate goal, Guaneli said, is for the state to be able to prove to a court that marijuana is stronger and is causing more harm in Alaska than back when the 1975 Ravin decision came out. Then the state might be able to show it has a strong enough interest in making it illegal to override the constitutional questions. Source: Associated Press Published: November 15, 2003Copyright: 2003 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Appeals Court Just Says No To Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17801.shtmlMarijuana Taking High Profile in Alaska http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17539.shtmlAlaska Court Ruling Sparks Hope for Advocateshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17221.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by Granfalloon on November 16, 2003 at 11:40:37 PT:
Re: State's weak argument
As far as I know, the *average* THC content of marijuana has indeed gotten higher since 1975, with the proliferation of high quality/hydroponic grow operations. Even so, I believe the weed with the highest THC content has pretty much stayed the same over that time at about 30% or so. And of course, there's always been hashish, which has a higher THC content than any weed today. I could be very wrong about much of this, though, since I've never seen a very convincing argument for any of it from either side of the issue.It's all a moot point, though, because THC is neither toxic nor addictive, and so it should really be in our best interests if we can show that we DO have stronger weed these days, which makes for safer smoking since we don't need to consume as much tar, etc. for the same high.Since this is the case, I really think that it's counterproductive whenever pot activists argue the point that the weed tested 30 years ago was of extremely low quality. I don't doubt that this is the case, but we shouldn't act as if it matters; we should be exposing the lie that a higher THC content is bad in the first place.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by John Tyler on November 16, 2003 at 05:51:33 PT
State's weak argument
The ultimate goal, Guaneli said, is for the state to be able to prove to a court that marijuana is stronger and is causing more harm in Alaska than back when the 1975 Ravin decision came out. Then the state might be able to show it has a strong enough interest in making it illegal to override the constitutional questions. Is that it? The state's best argument is that the weed today is better than it was back in 1975! What valid proof is there of this, old lab test done on stale ditch weed? This argument is so weak as to be laughable. I think alcohol is a bigger problem in Alaska than cannabis. Let the "nattering nabobs of nannism" work on that for awhile.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 15, 2003 at 21:24:55 PT
Thank You CorvallisEric 
I finally got it posted. It's a snipped source and it takes me a while but here it is now!Mark Stepnoski Put a Lot on The Line in Marijuana Effort : http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17804.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by The GCW on November 15, 2003 at 20:49:34 PT
LEGALIZE THIS 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1775/a07.html?397The national "War on Drugs" is one of the primary reasons why the United States locks up its citizens at a higher rate than any other country in the world, according to an April report from Human Rights Watch. .....Some South Carolinians want to change that. ........if the courts keep locking up people like they've been doing, South Carolina is soon going to need two more prisons at a cost of $300 million, he adds. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by CorvallisEric on November 15, 2003 at 20:49:06 PT
Off-topic: Mark Stepnoski
Good (and long) article on him in Dallas Morning News. The link only has a short preview. When you click on the title "Mark Stepnoski put a lot on the line in marijuana effort" you get the registration page. http://www.dallasnews.com/texasliving/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 15, 2003 at 20:15:59 PT
New Article from Snipped Source
Court Denies Personal Pot AppealMARIJUANA: Decision shoots down state; earlier personal use ruling stands.By Sean Cockerham, Anchorage Daily NewsPublished: November 15, 2003JUNEAU -- The Alaska Court of Appeals has refused to reconsider a case in which it ruled that adults have the right to have marijuana in their homes for personal use.The state appeals court on Friday afternoon denied Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes' petition for a rehearing in the case of David Noy, a North Pole man who was arrested in 2001 after he was found with marijuana in his home. Renkes said that the next step is to ask the Alaska Supreme Court take up the case.In a case that is being watched around the nation, the court in August had reversed Noy's conviction and ruled that Alaskans have the right to possess less than four ounces of marijuana in their homes for personal use. The court based its ruling on the broad right to privacy in Alaska's Constitution, as interpreted in the 1975 landmark Alaska Supreme Court case of Ravin vs. State.The Ravin decision had led to the legalization of at-home use of small amounts of marijuana for several years, giving Alaska the most liberal pot laws in the nation. That ended in 1990 when Alaska voters passed an initiative to criminalize the possession of all pot.But this summer's ruling in the Noy case interpreted the Ravin decision as meaning that Alaska's constitutional right to privacy is so strong that the voters -- and the Legislature -- are restricted from just deciding that pot should be illegal in the home."The state contends that this view of Ravin is fundamentally flawed and that Ravin did not announce a constitutional restriction on the government's lawmaking power ... we are convinced that the state's interpretation of Ravin is wrong," the state appeals court said Friday in its ruling on the Noy marijuana case.Dean Guaneli, the chief assistant attorney general, responded that the appeals court misunderstood arguments made by the state. And the attorney general's office on Friday issued a press release looking on the bright side of its legal setback.The press release was titled "Court of Appeals says State Free to Challenge 1975 Ravin Case." It didn't mention the court's denial of the state's request for a rehearing in the Noy case until the third paragraph.Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/4380043p-4391162c.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment