Not Your Father's Marijuana (Because Surely He Has Smoked His Old Stash By Now)
The Drug War Chronicle reports that a bill to recriminalize marijuana possession in Alaska is moving fast through the state legislature, pushed by Gov. Frank Murkowski. But since private possession of up to four ounces is legal in Alaska as a result of the state Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution's privacy clause, simply passing the legislation won't be enough to let police start rounding up marijuana users. Given the cost-benefit analysis underlying the marijuana ruling, Murkowski and his allies will have to convince the Supreme Court that marijuana is either more dangerous than it used to be or more dangerous that we used to think, such that the costs of extra marijuana use that can be attributed to Alaska's relative tolerance outweigh the costs of arresting pot smokers.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sounds like it is time to get some pro-execuive Alito clones on the Alaskan Supreme Court.
This need to be a jury trial.
"Your Honor, as foreman I exercise jurisprudence and request a half-ounce of 'ghani so we can continue our deliberations."
Note that up to four ounces of marijuana is legal in your home. You shouldn't try carrying four ounces out on the street. The idea in the Alaska Supreme Court ruling was that the privacy rights of citizens to not have the police barge in their homes, outweigh the supposed danger to society of small amounts of marijuana.
Gov. Murkowski had farcical hearings earlier to try to show that marijuana is now suddenly dangerous to get the State Supreme Court would change its ruling. He finally gave up and just had the legislature state that marijuana is now dangerous. Hopefully the State Supreme Court will laugh.
Man, Alaska must be fun - my "mall amount of marijuana" is way smaller than four ounces.
*small
Nice to see that the Alaska legislature is addressing really important issues. The killer weed could devestate the entire population of the US by invading through Alaska.
Look at the degradation it has caused after being legalized for how many years there? Alaska! A drug riddled hell hole if we ever saw one!!
The damage has already been done, we ought to cede it back to Russia..if they will have it...maybe if we throw in some gulags? There may be some secret prisons that could be thrown in once the war on terror is won.
The Russians will need them to torture the drug use out of the population.
People still buy the more potent argument? My dad (a Yale grad and attorney who seems to suffer no cognitive or motivational problems) put it best: "I resent the idea that we didn't know where to get the good stuff."
So, in Alaska, if they suspect you may have 5 ounces "in your home" they can bust the doors down. Just one small battle in the War on Drugs. Elvis didn't do no drugs!
I'm just amazed that the baby boomers who did a metric shit ton more drugs than their successors now have the audacity to say that drugs are bad, mm kay.
jeff p.:
"Your Honor, as foreman I exercise jurisprudence and request a half-ounce of 'ghani so we can continue our deliberations."
Demanding Central Asian crap when the streets are flooded with Matanuska Thunderfuck?
Jeff P., you just made 300,000 enemies in the greater Anchorage region.
I have a cogent point to add to this discussion: this Murkowski guy is a dick. A total dick. He should be locked up. Seriously.
Stupid pollock.
Good point, uh, up to the Polish slur.
I've always found it ironic that politicians who don't want kids to smoke keep telling them that you get a better high now than you used to. Yeah, that'll work.
happy:
they don't "not want kids to smoke". They could care less about the well-being of children. They just want more power, and for you to have less freedom.
happyjuggler-
The warnings drive up demand. The enforcement efforts drive down supply. Price goes up. From the perspective of a corrupt person on a drug dealer's payroll, that's a very desirable outcome.
I'm just amazed that the baby boomers who did a metric shit ton more drugs than their successors now have the audacity to say that drugs are bad, mm kay.
Well, you sure can't say that their drug use made them any smarter, that's for damn sure.
I'm just amazed that the baby boomers who did a metric shit ton more drugs than their successors now have the audacity to say that drugs are bad, mm kay.
Hey, we know you kids are just a bunch of pussies and can't handle drugs. We could because we were just the smartest, toughest generation, ever.
Gov. Frank - asshat extraordinaire. I've never met his wife, but somehow they produced a marginally sane daughter. (Worth noting that he got castigated when he appointed her to the Senate not because of nepotism, but because she's too librul...)
And Governor, good luck convincing the Supremes that Ravin was wrongly decided...
Fish On and other Alaska readers,
This thing is due to go to the house next week. Call, write, send candles to your reps before then. It may not do any good but it sure can't hurt. The Sentor from Anchorage was the only one to say no to it and I suspect that the hardest pressed ones will be out in the MatSu Valley becuase of the supposed "Meth Epidemic" there. All BS anyhoo, but since it is now an omnibus bill it will be harder to convince people to vote it down. Hopefully the ADN will print my editorial.
"they don't "not want kids to smoke". They could care less about the well-being of children. They just want more power, and for you to have less freedom."
Um... wow. Do you really believe yourself? Not to stand up for nannystate fucktards, but I would venture that virtually none of them actually advocate what they do merely for the sake of "more power," but rather by a misguided sense of self-righteousness. Hyperbole like yours doesn't do much to advance our cause, I should think.
Fish on:
"Demanding Central Asian crap when the streets are flooded with Matanuska Thunderfuck?"
If someone is selling you herb and telling you that it's MTF, then they are a typical Alaskan (huge bullshitter). I won't argue that it's good stuff, but MTF it's not. You're likely getting skunk #1 or a hybrid with some Northern Lights variety. Most of the *really* good stuff went away before they recriminalized back in '90 or '91.
"Not Your Father's Marijuana (Because Surely He Has Smoked His Old Stash By Now)"
I'm just posting to object to the headline of this thread.
I think our cherished daughter still doesn't believe us that we never did marijuana.
We were just a little too old. Plus from the South where it might have arrived later than amongst the dissipated Yankees.
If all drugs were legal, what would be the most popular?
I find it hard to believe anything delivered with impurities for the lungs.
"Um... wow. Do you really believe yourself? Not to stand up for nannystate fucktards, but I would venture that virtually none of them actually advocate what they do merely for the sake of "more power," but rather by a misguided sense of self-righteousness."
Evil is evil, whether it comes wrapped in naked avarice or legitimate concern for one's fellow man.
Libertarians are just as ignorant of the biochemistry of drug use as the people they oppose.
"Addiction" is cargo cult science.
Is Addiction Real?
are just as ignorant of the biochemistry of drug use as the people they oppose.
M. Simon,
The summary execution of heroin addicts in China during the Cultural Revoloution seems to have solved the problem, and without a knowledge of either biochemistry or addiction.
Where libertarians, like Jacob Sullum, are really misstaken is in their premise that people will use illegal drugs regardless of the penalty.
"Where libertarians, like Jacob Sullum, are really misstaken is in their premise that people will use illegal drugs regardless of the penalty."
Sullum (and me) might be mistaken in that belief, but so far we have been proved right. Do you think there is some penalty that would frighten off users? The death penalty would certainly "cure" the one who is executed, but I doubt it would completely deter other users.