[Keith]

Alaska takes one more step away from the nanny-state. First, Vermeont style carry and now the notion that adults can make their own decisions about how they unwind after work.


http://adn.com/front/story/3799677p-3825431c.html

Court affirms right to possess pot
RULING: Alaskans can have a small amount of marijuana in their homes; state vows high court review.

By MIKE CHAMBERS
The Associated Press

(Published: August 30, 2003)
JUNEAU -- In a ruling handed down Friday, a state appellate court has affirmed the right of Alaskans to possess a small amount of marijuana in their homes.

The state Court of Appeals, in a unanimous ruling, reversed a 2001 conviction of a North Pole man found with marijuana in his home and ordered a new trial.

In striking down the conviction of David S. Noy, the court called into question a 1990 voter initiative that criminalized possession of any amount of marijuana.

The ruling drew an immediate reaction from Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, who called it "regrettable." Attorney General Gregg Renkes also vowed to seek a state Supreme Court review.

"Substance abuse is causing great harm to our rural society, specifically our young people," Murkowski said in a statement.

North Pole police arrested Noy on July 27, 2001, after a search of his home turned up five live pot plants, growing equipment and other paraphernalia.

A jury convicted Noy of one count of sixth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance, a misdemeanor charge of possessing less than eight ounces of marijuana.

Noy argued that a privacy provision in the Alaska Constitution made it legal to own the marijuana. The appellate court reversed the conviction but upheld a state drug-dealer law making it illegal to possess more than four ounces of marijuana in a home.

"Alaska citizens have a right to possess less than four ounces of marijuana in their home for personal use," Appeals Judge David Stewart said. State prosecutors could retry Noy for possession of a greater quantity, Stewart said.

"It's a tremendous victory for civil liberties and personal privacy rights," said Howard Scaman of the pro-marijuana group STRAIGHT. "This could be the bellwether case for the rest of the country."

The ruling affirms a controversial 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision that allowed Alaskans to possess marijuana in their homes only for personal use. The Legislature deemed possession of more than four ounces proof that a resident is dealing drugs.

The appellate court ruling left that prohibition in place.

[Atticus]

"The ruling drew an immediate reaction from Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, who called it "regrettable." Attorney General Gregg Renkes also vowed to seek a state Supreme Court review.

"Substance abuse is causing great harm to our rural society, specifically our young people," Murkowski said in a statement."


So... Mr. Governor, you're saying that the current law isn't working then?

Sounds like Governor Taft of Ohio's CCW logic. "Ah.. criminals have concealed guns already ...so we don't want to make it worse by making it legal for the law abiding to have them."

[PeteyPete]

I hate drugs, especially after seeing what they've done to some of my closest friends and family members...but frankly, the War on Drugs is wrong and unconstitutional.

The gov't doesn't have the right to outlaw items they deem "unsafe" or "immoral" simply by signing and passing legislation. Back during prohibition, the gov't realized the only legal way to outlaw alcohol was to amend the constitution. They were fully aware of the limits on them outlined in the constitution, and decided to go about prohibiting alcohol in the only way the constitution permits. After realizing the error in their ways, the amendment was repealed.

Without a congressional vote to amend the constitution, no gov't body or authority has the legal right to outlaw anything, from drugs to guns. Each and every law on the books concerning the prohibition of anything is patently unjust (without amending the constitution) and outside our legislator's constitution-given authority. Frankly, they're writing laws the constitution doesn't allow them to enforce. Too bad the enlightened "living-breathing document" Judges would rather wipe their asses w/ the constitution, rather than obeying it.

[Tamara]

Oh, no! Now all those resources used to track down bong-sales figures and Moody Blues Greatest Hits CD's might actually have to be used to catch thieves and rapists and murderers instead. The horror!

[rock jock]

The state Court of Appeals, in a unanimous ruling, reversed a 2001 conviction of a North Pole man found with marijuana in his home and ordered a new trial.
Oh yeah, I knew that Santy Claus was jolly for a reason.

[Wildalaska]

Oh, no! Now all those resources used to track down bong-sales figures and Moody Blues Greatest Hits CD's might actually have to be used to catch thieves and rapists and murderers instead. The horror!

Actually there has been a prosecution or two for Bong sales in Anchorage...with that silliness aside, they do a pretty good job ignoring non victim crimes (like weed, hooking, and porn) concentrating instead on the more serios stuff..

Aside to Keith...Ive spokne to about 18 Anchorage cops and none of them are happy about the new non permit law...and all of these cops are not anti gun in the slightest...FWIW

WildtheydoagoodjobAlaska

[Parker Dean]

Aside to Keith...Ive spokne to about 18 Anchorage cops and none of them are happy about the new non permit law...and all of these cops are not anti gun in the slightest...FWIW



So have they happened to mention WHY they think that law abiding citizen should have to submit to government approval for their means of self-defense when they know full well that criminal will not? Or have they just not thought it through beyond "we've lost some (illusory) control"?

[Thumper]

Ive spokne to about 18 Anchorage cops and none of them are happy about the new non permit law...and all of these cops are not anti gun in the slightest

WildobviouscontradictionAlaska

[stevelyn]

I've spoken to about 18 Anchorage cop and none are happy about the non-permit law....and all of these cops are not anti-gun in the slightest.

Well that's like the latent anti who starts off saying "I'm a hunter and gun owner, but........".

First off it's not the cops choice, it's the legislature's through wishes of the people and they (we) just have to live with it. If I remember correctly former DPS Commissioner Richard Burton and toadies were adamently opposed to the original bill that created the AK CHL system to the point that he forbade Alaska State Troopers from teaching the legal aspects portion of the CHL class on their own time. Commissioner Ron Otte (appointed by Gov. Tony Knowles-D) recinded the policy on request of troopers. None of the dire predictions of Burton and company ever occurred. By the way, this bill was signed into law because of overwhelming pressure from the legislature and people.

The Vermont style carry bill was passed and signed into law due to overwhelming demand by the people and legislature (again). It's what WE wanted. Not the cops, not the antis, not the elitists, not the socialist, nanny-state handwringers, or the control-freak infected bureaucracy. There is nothing in nor implied in this law that gives prohibited persons permission to carry or possess concealable firearms contrary to the AK Statutes. The statutes currently can adequately deal with any misuse or criminal conduct involving firearms...concealed or otherwise.
All the dire predictions of this law, like the original, are also going to fall flat too. If you can't handle or trust people excercising a little freedom, perhaps you should move. I'm sure Fidel or Kim would welcome you with open arms and a big ol' :D.

Reality check.... Like it or not police work is an inherently hazardous profession with real dangers. Two percent of any population is going to be problem children. If they don't like or cannot accept those risks, find another career that makes you feel safer. The job is not going to get any safer or less risky by taking away the good citizen's liberty. The academies and in-service trainings provide excellent training on how respond to the risks of police work, use it instead of advocating for artificial security measures of oppressive laws.

I have a problem with cops who use their job title to endorse govt. oppression in the name of public safety or saving us from ourselves. IMO it's deceitful and is a violation of their oaths. Police work is not (or at least shouldn't be) about control, it's about providing a service to the community.

WildclosetelitisismAlaska

[Art Eatman]

I guess what rings my chimes is the re-definition of "use" to be the same as "abuse".

One can abuse alcohol, but the doctors say that a couple of glasses of wine can be beneficial to one's health. In some sixty years of seeing people drink, I've never known one or two beers of an evening to hurt anybody. One or two sixpacks every evening is surenuff headed toward abuse.

Same for MaryJane. Getting stoned is not the same as a couple of tokes for relaxation...

If you can't trust the public at large to not always get stoned, how do you trust the public at large to not always get drunker'n rats?

Art

[Keith]

Well, it's actually a step backwards for Alaska. Marijuana was legal from 1975 to 1991 when they recriminalized it.
I don't think the legality or illegality of the substance had any effect on how many people "abused" the substance.
And I don't think possession of a permit will have any effect on how many people use a gun illegally.

Keith

[telomerase]

>One can abuse alcohol, but the doctors say that a couple of glasses of wine can be beneficial to one's health.

Red wine contains chemicals that are particularly beneficial, however there was a HUGE cardiac-disease study recently that proved that any source of a moderate amount of alcohol reduced heart disease. People in the moderate-use group had something like 50% the heart attacks of the teetotalers.

So not only is Prohibition immoral, it actually caused heart disease. Doubtless those who still support Prohibition-style licensing laws will be apologizing any time now.

(Personally, I was a teetotaler before, but I've taken up drinking red wine.)

[Keith]

Wild,

Isn't that an oxymoron? "They aren't happy about the new law, but they aren't anti-gun in the slightest?"
If you want government to regulate a civil liberty, I'd say you're at least slightly "anti"...


Keith

[Nightfall]

The gov't has no business sticking it's nose into what adults consume to relax anyway.

A step in the right direction, IMHO.

[Atticus]

I think we need a War on Obesity. Possession of hamburgers, cheescake and fries would be a felony....but butter, cheese sticks, funnel cakes, etc would not be ...as long as Sarah Lee and Pillsbury could make huge profits from them. But the scumbag burger, fry, and cheescake "merchants of death" like Mickie D's, Burger King, The Cheescake Factory.. and maybe that evil Cheryl Cookie lady would do some hard time... we don't like them anyway.
We'll spend billions or trillions keeping potatoes and beef out of the country (oh wait they grow that crap in this country...and people can even make them at home - but oh..we've got door knockers and flash
bangs for that bidness).
We'll turn our friendly dieticians into ninja warriors by hiring only ex military, since they are already familiar with heavy weaponry and urban assault tactics. We'll become an industry unto ourselves, growing bigger and bigger every year by beating the burger bug...even though we know it achieves very little.
And then ...(maybe in a hundred years or so) we'll figure out that preventative education, welfare reform, and fiscal management (used to facliitate an environment of hope) were the things that worked...and were only a fraction of the price.

[seeker_two]

Question for the panel: If the LEO's were using Constitutional methods to enforce the anti-drug laws (i.e. no no-knock warrants, property seizures, etc.), would you be FOR or AGAINST the War on (some) Drugs?

Just curious...

[Atticus]

I believe the WHOLE approach is wrong. As with guns- punish unacceptable behaviour and actions...period. I'm very much against drug abuse and even recreational use in many cases. Most of the lessions learned during alcohol prohibition could be applied to Marijuana. It's a non-issue- make it legal for people over 21- bust those under 21 -regulate it tax it- make rope and clothes out of it. Quit subsidising tobacco growers and let them grow it ...for a profit. Harder, more addictive drugs should be targeted more by education and rehabilitation. Bust illegal sellers for tax evasion ala Capone.

I'm generally against big government programs, but I'd rather see the WPA revived, and the poor out building roads, than the current financial waste of waging the drug war..mostly against those who are poor. Tired, working people don't have time or the desire to sit around getting high.
If they want to still do it in the privacy of their home ...then let them. Many well known people used opium, and worse, throughout the 19th century. Mary Todd Lincoln, Edgar Allen Poe, and many of the 19th century socialites would be criminals by today's standards. Their addictions were tragic perhaps, but not criminal.

One thing is clear- what we are doing now is not working- so try something else.

One other point- It is pretty ironic that we now spend billions of dollars to prevent people from getting illegal drugs, but spend very little assisting our senior citizens, and the chonically ill, in getting the legal drugs they need.

[tyme]

There is zero constitutional authority to ban drugs. They acknowledged that with the 18th amendment. Why they decided that hallucinogens and opiates are somehow fundamentally different than alcohol or nicotine, I have no idea... political pressure to find something so Treasury agents could keep their jobs?

[Wildalaska]

Keith, Parker, the cops that gave me a reason basically said that they would prefer knowing that an concealed weapons guy was law abiding by the magic words "I have a gun and a permit"..they then knew that at least on its face the guy aint a felon....none of them expressed any real disdain for the new law, just a prefernce for the old one...my observation was not set forth to begin the great politcal debate again or start the usual name calling , rather just set forth what Ive been told..

BTW, the mere fact that one thinks that a permit to carry is necessary does not make one "anti gun"..

WildshadesofgreyAlaska

[rock jock]

There is zero constitutional authority to ban drugs.
On a federal level, yes. States can do what they want.

[Tamara]

BTW, the mere fact that one thinks that a permit to carry is necessary does not make one "anti gun"..

You're right; I guess "anti-RKBA" would be more technically correct. ;)

[rock jock]

You're right; I guess "anti-RKBA" would be more technically correct.
In a Shall-Issue state where one can only be denied to have a permit based on the same restrictions that would prohibit gun ownership, how is a permit system anti-RKBA?

[Oracle]

Because one need not get a permit to exercise a true right, and, truthfully, anyone that isn't currently incarcerated should be able to exercise their rights, all of them. Do you believe, RJ, that people should have to get a permit to legally exercise their rights to freely worship, and that felons and others who the government deems unworthy should be denied the right to do so? Denying someone the right to keep and bear arms, even someone whom the government deems unworthy, is just as bad as the government denying that person the right to worship as they choose, and both are illegal under our Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it state that the government can deny a person not currently incarcerated any of their rights, including the right to keep and bear arms?

[rock jock]

Oracle,

I understand the argument and, ideally, we wouldn't need a license to acrry legally nor would ex-convicts be deprived of their RKBA. However, we unfortunately do not live in a perfect society. Criminals are not sufficiently punished and are released unto society while they are still a threat. Likewise, we make accomodations with the present set of CCW systems to account for a less-than-perfect judiciary. The point I am emphasizing is that in a shall-issue state, we are not asking the state for permission to carry. We say "I want to carry a gun." The state says "fine, fill out this paperwork, take a short class, and pay a small fee." So, while a license is an inconvenience and arguably an offense to our ideal of freedom, it is not a hindrance to our RKBA.

[Keith]

With or without a permit, felons are prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. This law doesn't change that.

Keith

[tyme]

rockjock, substantive due process doesn't just apply to the feds.

The whole federalist concept is broken, not because it was originally a bad idea, but because the idea was that the States would never usurp the powers meant to be retained by the people. Who in 1789 would have thought that States would be banning guns or drugs? Nobody. Technological improvements have increased the effort necessary for "nobodies" to have an equivalent effect on state or national legislators, so States are more detached from the people and more likely to pass stupid laws. And people have become ignorant of the political process and of political theory, so they accept anything they see on TV.