Friday, September 26, 2014

An explanation of marijuana laws in Alaska that even I find confusing.

When I first heard about Ballot Measure 2, my first thought was "Wait, isn't pot already legal up here?"

And the answer to that question is "Yes, kinda."

In fact in 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that residents have the right to grow and consume small amounts of marijuana in their homes. That was 39 years ago, when I was only fifteen.

However that is where things get a little complicated.

Here let the Washington Post clear things up a little for you:

As you might imagine, that ruling has faced some opposition over the years, and has been placed into legal limbo from time to time due to various ballot and legislative challenges. But Alaska courts have repeatedly and consistently upheld the notion that Constitutional privacy protections cover the personal possession, cultivation and use of marijuana in Alaska. 

"Alaskans can currently lawfully possess up to four ounces of marijuana in their homes for personal use [and cultivate up to 25 plants], but still risk prosecution under existing state and federal statutes," concludes University of Alaska law professor Jason Brandeis in an exhaustive history of Alaska marijuana law (which makes for a pretty interesting read if you're into such things). You could still technically be charged with marijuana possession if caught with less than four ounces in your home, but a court would essentially have to throw the charge out. 

This puts Alaska in a unique position: in some respects its marijuana laws are more liberal than those in the Netherlands, which outlaw personal cultivation completely. While all eyes are on Colorado and Washington to see how those experiments with legal marijuana turn out, Alaska, with 39 years of (admittedly complicated) legalization history is largely overlooked: you'd think that forces on both sides of the national marijuana debate would be looking to Alaska for answers and arguments. Why aren't they? 

Part of it is that Alaska is just weird. Extrapolating lessons from one state to the rest of the country is a fraught exercise in the best circumstances, and all the more so when the state in question is geographically remote and sparsely populated.

The article goes on to say that even Alaskans are often not sure of the laws up here. And I would certainly agree as I am one of those that was not up to speed.

So what the ballot measure does is essentially kind of make the whole thing much simpler to understand in the following ways: 

Includes a statement saying the initiative is not intended to diminish the rights established by the Alaska Supreme Court in the Ravin case, which allow citizens to possess a limited amount of marijuana in their homes. It also includes a statement saying the initiative will not diminish the rights of patients or caregivers under Alaska’s medical marijuana law. 

Makes possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and up to six plants (three flowering) legal for adults 21 years of age or older. It also allows adults to possess the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants are grown. 

Makes manufacture, sale and possession of marijuana accessories legal. 

Grants regulatory oversight to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, but gives the legislature the authority to create a new Marijuana Control Board at any time. The regulatory board has nine months to enact regulations, and applications shall be accepted one year after the effective date of the initiative. 

Creates the following marijuana establishments: marijuana retail stores, marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana infused-product manufacturers, and marijuana testing facilities. 

Allows localities to ban marijuana establishments, but they cannot prohibit private possession and home cultivation. 

Establishes an excise tax of $50 per ounce on sales or transfers from a marijuana cultivation facility to a retail store or infused-product manufacturer. 

Consumption of marijuana in public will remain illegal and punishable by a $100 fine. 

The initiative does NOT change existing laws related to driving under the influence. 

Allows employers to maintain restrictions on marijuana use by employees. 

As I have mentioned before I am not someone who uses marijuana so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

However I really DO think that the whole country is moving toward legalization, and since Alaska is just about there anyway it makes no sense that we would let this opportunity pass without giving it our yes vote, as we all know full well that it will certainly be passed anyway in the next five years or so.

We might as well be ahead of the wave, instead of being left high and dry on the sand (Or perhaps more accurately un-high and dry on the sand.) while other states cross the finish line ahead of us.

10 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:19 AM

    Establishes an excise tax of $50 per ounce on sales or transfers from a marijuana cultivation facility to a retail store or infused-product manufacturer.

    I'd ask more questions about this. That seems like a large amount for a grower to retailer transaction. What will the tax for the consumer be and how much will the $50 per ounce tax increase the cost of the product?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland5:24 AM

      Have you looked at the price of cigarettes lately? The taxation levels on those are obviously aimed at encouraging smokers to stop smoking. The tax levels on MJ are seen as an extra income for states and as a way of discouraging users!

      That way, the states can say HEY! At least it's legal!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:37 AM

      High tax on marijuana is definitely aimed at extra income for states as well as for the education of minors, but maybe some of it is a luxury tax for adults. (I'm not really sure about that, just thinking "out loud")

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:43 AM

      What is confusing is in states that have MMJ or Col where it is "Legal" no one told the FEDS/DEA and they are raiding dispensaries. I could of sworn Holder or Obama told them to stand down and in his campaign messages he said he would do that? So is it the fault of the Do nothing Congress again? Another reason to vote Blue this NOV.
      Until the Feds stand down there will be danger. Congress is being paid off by the Alcohol companies. Yes big competition.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:08 PM

      To my recollection, there has not been a federal raid on a dispensary in Colorado in recent memory that was directly related to the (state-sanctioned) selling of marijuana. The most recent ones in Denver were based on charges of money laundering. At least that's what they said last Spring.

      I believe right now we have an informal understanding in Colorado that the DEA will leave alone state- licensed and law-abiding shops. The problem, of course, is that they can change their mind at any time. And there's really no reason to trust them.

      Which is why it's in all of our best interest--those of us who want rational, reasonable drug laws--to support legalization in as many states as possible until we have a critical mass.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous5:36 AM

    I live in Wasilla, the meth capital of Alaska, when will they legalize meth and prostitution? I expected our governor to do that before she quit on us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:31 AM

      She would never legalize either of those things. There is a huge markup in price when something is illegal and somebody's husband has to earn his keep.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:46 AM

      Well prostitution MUST be legal, todd is still doing it? And there used to be a "Titty" bar right across from Sarah's dead lake house its empty now. Or was. Right by the railroad tracks.
      When the oil Co came there was and still is $$ to be made in prostitution. Why do you think the APD and FBI look the other way and are "clients"?

      Delete
  3. Anonymous7:30 AM

    Anyone who is in favor of rational, reasonable laws, an increase in the tax base, a reduction of the milieu of the illegal marijuana market, and money saved by the elimination of unnecessary and unfair police attention to and prosecution of adult users of marijuana has a dog in this fight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hedgewytch9:14 AM

    You say you don't have a dog in this fight because you don't smoke cannabis. Actually you do. As a tax payer, citizen, you are directly and indirectly affected by the amount of people being busted for non-violent crimes, the rise of the private prison industry being fueled by mostly these types of "criminals", the associated costs of the criminal black market for the sale of illegal drugs, the associated health care costs, etc. all of that translates down the line to your tax dollars and cost of living. As well as you and your families right's.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.