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.
CONSTITUTIONALLY, what's the difference?
Dandelions aren't part of a massive fungible illicit interstate drug trade.
Neither is my growing a plant in my own backyard, no matter what plant it is.
You didn't answer my question.
So you only want to grow plants? That's all?
Gee, ya promise?
Marijuana is fungible. Marijuana is an illicit drug by the laws of all fifty states. Marijuana is an item of commerce in a massive interstate trade in such drugs.
You didn't answer my question.
I did. You're in denial.
Indeed, there should have been no limit.
"Well, if I like to read books, I may not be led to rob a store. But if I just read all day and don't go to work,I can lose my job and then be motivated to steal."
Oh, reading is worse that than that. You could actually read a book that glorified robbery and motivated you that way.
Perhaps. But isn't that for the legislature to say, rather than the courts?
"illicit"
Which was created by the State Government.
True. And when caught, blame the book.
The legislature has a say, via an amendment to the State Constitution. If its such an overriding concern to Alaskans that they want to amend the State Constitution to specifically exempt marijuana use from their explicit Right To Privacy, then they should do so. Its a tidy little system.
... constitutionally reflecting the will of the majority of its citizens.
Amend a nonexistent four ounce pot clause? If the dopers want the state constitution to include such an exception, the burden is on them.
Judicial legislation can be undone by real law.
As opposed to an act of judicial activism.
Thanks.
Pay attention, Wolfie. Who said anything about exempting? Not me.
I was tallking about the amount. Setting the amount. Number of ounces. Who should set that number.
Got it?
no, they'd just turn to prostitution. /sarcasm
You'll see in post #86 that I agree with you on that point.
Which means the legislature shall insure that all laws are in compliance with the Right to Privacy. The Legislature was derelict in this duty, and the Court let them know.
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.