cannabisnews.com: North To Alaska!





North To Alaska!
Posted by CN Staff on October 13, 2004 at 16:29:02 PT
By Brooke Thorsteinson, Cannabis Culture
Source: AlterNet
If a new ballot initiative succeeds, Alaska will become the only state where it's legal to smoke, buy and sell pot. Alaska has flip-flopped on its marijuana laws a few times over the last 30 years, starting back in 1975, when it became legal for adult Alaskans to possess small amounts of marijuana in their homes for personal use.
In 1990, voters criminalized all amounts of pot by ballot initiative. Then, last year, the Alaska Court of Appeals reversed that vote, saying privacy rights guaranteed in the Alaska constitution can't be taken away by voters or legislators.Recently, the Alaska Supreme Court let that ruling stand by refusing to review the case. Then, the Court of Appeals ruled that police cannot execute a search warrant in a person's home for possessing small amounts of marijuana, defining that limit as four ounces.State prosecutors tried to argue that the earlier decisions did not legalize marijuana, but that the decisions created a defense that people can use when charged with possession. They tried to argue that marijuana possession is still a criminal offense and that a warrant can be issued if there is probable cause. But the court dismissed the argument, saying the earlier decisions defined a constitutional limitation to the government's ability to prohibit marijuana possession.Attorney General Gregg Renkes, not happy with the rulings, said he would appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he was "fearful that this will shut down effective investigation of marijuana growing cases." Renkes said, "It virtually prohibits us from getting search warrants to investigate marijuana home growing cases." The Alaska Supreme Court denied Renkes' petition.However, Renkes is "not giving up." He wants to take his case to the legislature in order to prove that marijuana is a harmful enough drug to warrant amending the constitution."The state has been denied an opportunity to present a record of the harmfulness of marijuana," Renkes claims. "The exception of privacy at home does not extend to cocaine because the state has proven it's harmful. It outweighs the right to privacy."But Renkes' crusade may be proven moot if voters pass Ballot Measure No. 2 scheduled for Nov. 2, 2004, which would remove all criminal and civil penalties for people 21 or older who "grow, use, sell or give away marijuana or hemp products."According to Tim Hinterberger, an associate professor of the biomedical program at the University of Alaska-Anchorage and organizer of Ballot Measure No. 2, "Alaska clearly has values of independence and responsibility and fairness that are different than the rest of the country. Clearly marijuana prohibition doesn't work, everyone knows that and it's time to try and find a different way."The Ballot Measure No. 2 campaign opened its headquarters in Anchorage and started hitting the airwaves with its message. "We have ads on TV, we have ads on radio and we have campaigners doing door-to-door in selected areas," said Hinterberger.Organizers of Ballot Measure No. 2 are hoping to make this measure more appealing than the last one in 2000. Previously, proponents wanted the drug to be legal for those 18 and older. They also wanted the government to free some jailed inmates convicted of marijuana crimes and set up a commission to consider reparations for them. But voters turned the initiative down.Ballot Measure No. 2 does away with amnesty and reparations and increases the legal age to 21. It allows for government regulation and taxation of cannabis similar to that of tobacco or alcohol. It also allows for laws limiting use in public and to protect public safety, such as prohibiting people from driving while under the influence of pot.If the initiative passes, Alaska will become the only state where it's legal to smoke, buy and sell pot. This is significant, for at any given time, over 800,000 people are in prison for pot crimes in the U.S., while an astounding 100 million people claim to have smoked pot at least once. This disparity between public use and incarceration proves that the current drug policy isn't working. It's time to try something new. And if Alaska breaks new ground, other states will surely follow with their own laws. Source: AlterNet (US)Author:  Brooke Thorsteinson, Cannabis CulturePublished:  October 13, 2004Copyright: 2004 Independent Media InstituteContact: letters alternet.org Website: http://www.alternet.org/DL: http://alternet.org/drugreporter/20164/Related Articles & Web Site:Yes on 2 Alaskahttp://www.yeson2alaska.com/Legalization Advocates Hope To Tax Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19623.shtmlAlaskans To Decide on Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19622.shtmlProp 2 Would Help Fight Alaska's Costly Warhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19620.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by FoM on October 14, 2004 at 19:37:24 PT
John Tyler
It sure could ramp up tourism. Maybe we all can go on an Alaskan Tour on a Cruise ship! Wouldn't that be wonderful! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by John Tyler on October 14, 2004 at 19:32:26 PT
Tourist Destination
This could really ramp up Alaskan tourism.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by siege on October 14, 2004 at 09:29:31 PT
               phrase
Glad to see this one has nothing about That phrase **The Children** They are smarter then the Average Alaskan Attorney General.However, Renkes is "not giving up." He wants to take his case to the legislature in order to prove that marijuana is a harmful enough drug to warrant amending the constitution.With what is going on with HHS and the Supreme Court his fears could 
come true that there is **no harm in legalize marijuana** then he will be looking for new work."Fearful that this will shut down effective investigation of marijuana growing cases."
They are aloud to possess four ounces where are they to get it, if not to grow it. Doze's 
Attorney General Gregg Renkes have shops for them to buy it in, if not he schold shut his mouth and provide Them for the people.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on October 14, 2004 at 08:16:44 PT
CorvallisEric
Thank you for the poll update. I think now that the debates are over and Kerry won all three we can believe that more then likely Kerry will win. Hopefully he will if elected see our issue and help us. Deep down inside I believe he is a reasonable man. He has common sense in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 14, 2004 at 08:03:44 PT
Thanks sukoi!
I have it posted now!http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19639.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by The GCW on October 14, 2004 at 06:11:50 PT
They really are reaching now
CN ON: Editorial: Growing Tired of the LawIf marijuana grow operations represent a serious criminal threat, they should be dealt with by police, not hydro utility workers. Ontario Solicitor General Monte Kwinter said last week that he intends to bring in a law that gives hydro workers the power to shut off power to homes suspected of being grow operations. In this scenario, hydro workers become a kind of unofficial detective, monitoring the consumption of power and throwing the off switch when they've got enough evidence. Mr. Kwinter said one of the problems with the alarming number of grow houses in Ontario is that police need search warrants to enter suspected houses. Exactly. [Remainder snipped] http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1453/a04.html?397Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)Webpage: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=a1d1148d-8097-44d
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on October 14, 2004 at 05:01:17 PT:
They're really reaching now
Thank you, Sukoi. I hope a lot of folks visit that link.There are some glaringly obvious things that need to be brought up about it. The first being, under the picture of Mr. Burn's face, is the caption which states that Mr. Burns is 'lobbying'. 'Lobbying'. Lobbying? Why should this minion of the government, A PUBLIC SERVANT, be engaged in lobbying? That is usually the purview of someone who represents A SPECIAL INTEREST. A special interest that is trying to curry favor for a position NOT initiated or condoned by the public. Otherwise, the public would take the usual route of contacting its' representatives and lending their support...just as they are with Ballot Measure 2. Clearly, with the pattern established years ago by Barry McCaffery, Mr. Burns is only working against the popular wishes of Alaskans - and is demonstrating his contempt for the democratic process by butting the Feds in where they have no business being, interfering with that process.I won't go into the tired, old - and false - cliches of 'stronger pot', 'gateway drug', yada, yada, yada. That's all been covered before. (It's amazing how so many people who are in the government and fields it regulates are so ignorant of their own literature, namely the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report that scotches all that bilge. They still keep repeating the same old lies.)I will point out something else: the disingenuity of these antis is indicative of just how desperate they are in reaching for rhetorical straws like this:"Nancy Murkowski said she feared legalization would lead to more absenteeism at workplaces. She also worried about the effects it would have on villages that have worked to ban alcohol. "This is truly going to be something that is a cancer on our state," she said. "This is not about privacy," she said. "This is about smoking pot."This is condescendingly stereotypical political 'code' aimed at the First Nations population. It is along the same lines as the laws were in the Lower 48 forbidding the sale of alcohol to First Nations people ("Cain't give them Injuns 'firewater', they go plumb crazy'") Considering that cannabis doesn't fuel violence as alcohol certainly does, you'd think that if such concerns were *truly* on Ms. Murkowski's friends minds, they'd prefer cannabis. This is but another case of transplanted Jim Crow, Arctic style.The next matter of specious ingenuousness is the folowing: "... a Murkowski spokesman, Mike Chambers, later said the governor was drawing on his experience serving as a U.S. senator during base closure proceedings. Chambers said legalization could be an "aggravating factor" in such proceedings. "This could be something that influences someone's decision," he said. "It's going to have a negative effect on our relationship with the military." Chambers said Alaska is also a major training center for the military. "The fear is that something like this would have a chilling effect on the training dollars and where they spend them."Uh, last I looked, Bush Regime aside, we are *still* (putatively) a civilian controlled democracy. Which means the military doesn't call the shots. They'll do what they're told to. And if they're told to train in Alaska, they'll train in Alaska. As staggeringly drunk on power and hubris, the Bush regime can still read balance sheets, and isn't about to ditch the Billions of dollars spent in developing Alaska as a military training center out of petulant spite for Alaskans voting Yes on 2.Like I said, these people are really reaching far out on the limb. We won't have to saw it off; they'll break it from the weight of their own BS. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by sukoi on October 14, 2004 at 04:16:00 PT
But what about the military?
Anti-pot team attacks push to legalize ithttp://www.adn.com/front/story/5668643p-5600700c.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by CorvallisEric on October 14, 2004 at 01:45:20 PT
Fox update
Bush 44% --- Kerry 55% --- about 320,000 votes
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on October 13, 2004 at 23:16:23 PT
Max Flowers 
That's true about Fox. I watch MSNBC because they show both sides and try not to push one person over the other. Early Poll: Kerry Clear Winner in Debatehttp://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on October 13, 2004 at 23:03:45 PT
Of course
Of course Fox would have it favoring Bush.Fox is practically a White House propaganda operation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 13, 2004 at 19:38:20 PT
Early MSNBC and FoxNews Polls
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/Who won the debate?  * 91404 responses 
 
 Pres. Bush -- 16%  Sen. Kerry -- 84% 
 *** http://www.foxnews.com/Who won Wednesday night's presidential debate?  
a. President Bush --  (55%) -- 1,631 
 
b. Senator Kerry --  (41%) -- 1,202 
  
c. I did not watch  --  (3%) -- 88 
   
d. None of the above --  (1%) -- 20 
 
     2,941 total votes 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mayan on October 13, 2004 at 18:23:15 PT
Harmful Enough???
However, Renkes is "not giving up." He wants to take his case to the legislature in order to prove that marijuana is a harmful enough drug to warrant amending the constitution.Excuse Me, AG Renkes, but how many people has cannabis killed throughout our entire human history? Are you going to amend your Constitution to ban tobacco,alcohol and prescription drugs which kill thousands of people a year? Are you going to outlaw petrochemicals that poison our environment? No, you won't because you are merely another puppet that looks out for those industries. The average American is finally figuring out the agenda and motives of scumbags like you. Your drug-war gravy train is running out of steam. You are the one that is "harmful" to the earth and it's peoples! Your days are numbered and the number is very low.The way out is the way in...PROPOSITION 9/11 - U.S. citizens have a reason, a right and a responsibility to demand the whole 9/11 Truth from George W. Bush:
http://proposition911.org/Proposition911.org - The Case for Demanding "9/11 Truth" from Bush:
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/20041012005.htmlRadio Talk Show Host Takes Up 9/11 Truth:
http://www.scottledger.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on October 13, 2004 at 17:28:06 PT:
Br'er Renkes and the Brair Patch
"Please, Br'er. Renkes, don' t'row me in dat dere briar patch!"So, he wants to try to prove cannabis's ostensible 'harmfulness' in a legislature? How foolish can he be? People like him have been moving Heaven and Earth for *decades* to keep the facts from ever being presented in any arena where a final adjudication based on those facts can be made. A court. A legislative body. Any place where the facts MUST be verified under oath. And this guy's a lawyer?By all means, Mr. Renkes, please, if you wish to cut your own career's throat, we'll happily sharpen the razor for you. Excuse us while we don something waterproof and easily cleaned; like Gallagher show fans, we've had enough of anti messes covering us, and have learned to be careful.Mr. Renkes might also wish to re-acquaint himself with another childhood fable: Br'er Bear and the Tar Baby. He's about to get royally stuck to one if he keeps this up.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment