Posted on 12/16/2005 7:23:26 AM PST by Wolfie
Governor Set to Push Anti-Marijuana Legislation Again
The Murkowski administration will "hit the ground running" next session on a bill proposed last year to overturn a court decision on marijuana use, said Alaska Department of Law spokesman Mark Morones.
Alaskans are allowed to possess up to 4 ounces of marijuana in their homes for personal use but the bill could lower that amount to less than 1 ounce if it passes.
The Senate Health, Education and Social Services Committee heard from experts last session on both sides of the issue - some arguing marijuana is a threat to society and others saying pot is less harmful than a pack of cigarettes.
The bill is awaiting action in the Senate Finance Committee before it reaches the floor. Then it would head over to the House for review.
Alaska Assistant Attorney General Dean Guaneli said some of the state's arguments were misunderstood last session. The purpose of the bill is not to bust college students smoking pot in their dorms, but to go after commercial growers, he said.
"The police are not getting effective search warrants for marijuana growing operations," Guaneli said.
Even though officers can smell marijuana coming from a residence, it is not enough evidence to prove there is more than the 4 ounces needed to get a search warrant, he said.
Those possessing more than 4 ounces would be charged with a Class C felony and those with an ounce would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, according to the bill.
Michael Macleod-Ball, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, said the bill does not increase penalties for those growing commercial marijuana.
"Criminalizing those with small amounts of marijuana does not solve the problem," he said.
The bill also tampers with a right to privacy ruling that is unique to Alaska, Macleod-Ball said.
"All it does is give the police the ability to go into someone's home if they believe they have marijuana," he said.
A landmark court decision by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1975 made small amounts of marijuana kept at home by adults legal. It found no relationship between private use of the drug and the public welfare.
Experts who phoned in to the Senate committee meetings last session tried to show that in some cases smoking marijuana could lead to violence.
"If I smoke marijuana, I may not be led to rob a store. But I can lose my job and then be motivated to steal," John Fielder, a clinical psychologist at St. Mary's Medical Hospital in San Francisco, told the Senate committee last session.
The bill hearings are a platform to get testimony on the record so that if the bill passes, the findings can be used in court, Guaneli said.
The state will charge someone for possession of marijuana if the bill passes and use the suspect's trial to introduce the findings in the bill, he said. The judge may or may not use the findings to make his decision to overturn the long-standing ruling, Guaneli said.
The state wants to prevent marijuana from getting into the hands of children by going after local growers; if authorities can take out about half of the producers, then kids would be priced out of the market, Guaneli said.
The bill, Senate Bill 74, was bogged down last year because it was introduced in the middle of the session and needed extra time to get through the testimonies, Guaneli said.
Bills proposed last session that did not reach the House and Senate floors for a final vote are still alive because bills introduced in the two-year session remain on the table through 2006.
So you want a dope entitlement.
Does Coors have a "beer entitlement" ... or are you babbling again?
What does "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed" mean to you?
Just what it says. Nothing about four ounces of dope.
Its production and sale of alcoholic beverages is a taxed and regulated privilege. Society has chosen not to extend the same privilege to dope, so you're petulantly whining for an entitlement.
It means ALASKANS believe that the government's power is granted by the consent of Alaska's people, and that government should stay out of our lives and homes as much as practical.
It means Alaskans run Alaska, not ANY government.
It means we don't give a D@mn about how the rest of the nation does things. (Gaining the approval and consent of anyone, BUT ALASKANS, is NOT a priority).
It means that if OUR courts say up to 4 ozs of weed is "legal", then, until THE PEOPLE OF ALASKA want to change our STATE CONSTITUTION, it'll stay that way.
It means folks like Mo-jive, (who seems way stressed re: "the evil weed"), are free to express their irrelevant opinions.
But we don't HAVE to listen.
Thank GOD for ALASKA!
"Alaska IS, what America used to be."
Exercising that power through their elected representatives, not judges inventing laws from the bench.
You fear the will of the Alaskan people and despise the republican process by which their will is made manifest.
I welcome their decision, whatever it may be.
If having four ounces of dope in one's home is not included in privacy, the term has little meaning.
Where did you get that foolish idea? Production and sale of any commodity not posing a clear and present danger to others is a natural right.
then what good are swirling emanations of penumbras?
Assume the premise, beg the question.
Merry Christmas!
Backward; that's how the US Supreme Court found an unstated 'right to privacy' in the US Constitution ... in the Alaskan Constitution the right to privacy is explicitly stated.
No more than did your assertion.
Merry Christmas!
And a merry Christmas to you. Back on Monday.
Unless you are an Alaskan, what you "think", (about how ALASKA runs), means nothing.
:^p
"Merry Christmas!"
Damned? No, simply ignored -- you know, just like you ignore the federal constitution when you don't like what it says. Ignored, like the State of California ignores the will of the people in not enforcing Proposition 215.
But damned? Nah.
The Alaska Court of Appeals is writing legislation? I guess judicial activism is OK with you if it's your kind of activism, huh?
Unbelievable.
Judicial activism is OK with Wolfie if if it favors his cause. All other judicial activism is bad.
Unbelievable? No different than you believing that the Commerce Clause gives the fedgov the right to outlaw me growing a weed in my own backyard. THAT'S unbelievable!
I know, I know, "Congress has a finding...blah...blah...blah."
Merry Christmas all.
Key words ... Congress has a finding.
Not the court.
1. Congress making law is different from courts making law.
2. You can grow dandelions if you want.
But Congress won't make the laws he wants!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.