1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. Alfa
    JUSTICES UPHOLD RIGHT TO USE POT

    State Ruling: Federal Anti-Drug Laws on Possession Remain In
    Place.

    The Alaska Supreme Court has upheld the right of adult Alaskans to
    possess up to four ounces of marijuana in their homes for personal
    use.

    The high court accomplished this by letting stand a lower court
    opinion issued last year, which breathed life into a 1975 ruling
    thought by many to be obsolete.

    Attorney General Gregg Renkes and Fairbanks defense attorney Bill
    Satterberg agreed Tuesday that the four-ounce personal-use allowance
    is now indisputably the law, although it does not immunize Alaskans
    against federal drug statutes.

    If this sounds like the end of the matter, don't be fooled. Alaskans
    have been arguing about marijuana for 30 years, and this is just the
    latest "final" ruling.

    The 1975 decision, known as Ravin v. State, concluded that Alaskans'
    constitutional right to privacy outweighs any social harm that might
    be caused by at-home use of small amounts of marijuana.

    The Alaska Constitution has a special guarantee of privacy from
    government interference, one not included in the federal Constitution.
    The Ravin decision says the right is not absolute but concludes the
    state has to jump some pretty high hurdles to justify interfering with
    what a person does to him or herself in his or her own home. The state
    failed to prove that possessing a small amount of marijuana for
    private, adult, at-home use justified such interference, the justices
    said nearly 30 years ago.

    "The state cannot impose its own notions of morality, propriety, or
    fashion on individuals when the public has no legitimate interest in
    the affairs of those individuals," Ravin says.

    The decision expressed disapproval of marijuana use and upheld laws
    against the sale, distribution, driving under the influence, use by
    minors or use outside the home thereof.

    "It is the responsibility of every individual to consider carefully
    the ramifications for himself and for those around him of using such
    substances. With the freed
    om which our society offers to each of us to
    order our lives as we see fit goes the duty to live responsibly," Ravin said.

    Ravin did not mention a specific amount, but in 1982 the Legislature
    said anything under four ounces would be considered a personal-use
    stash, absent any evidence of sales or distribution.

    Ravin remained the law in Alaska until 1990, when voters passed an
    initiative outlawing all amounts of marijuana. The initiative appeared
    to "overturn" Ravin, and law enforcement around the state began
    prosecuting people for possession of small amounts.

    One of those people was David Noy of North Pole. According to
    Satterberg, his attorney, Noy was arrested after police reported they
    could smell his five marijuana plants in his home from 300 feet away.
    A jury convicted him of possession of less than eight ounces.

    Satterberg appealed the conviction, arguing among other points that
    the 1990 initiative recriminalizing small amounts of marijuana was
    illegal.

    The Court of Appeals agreed. The exception for personal use at home
    was based on a constitutional right, which could not be taken away by
    the Legislature or a ballot initiative, the court said in an Aug. 29,
    2003, decision.

    With the renewal of Ravin, Alaska joins 11 other states that have
    decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use, although
    many of those still fine people for possession, according to Kris
    Kane, assistant director of NORML, a national organization seeking
    regulated legalization of the drug.

    Renkes doesn't think Alaska should be in that select group. The world
    of drugs and addiction has changed in the 30 years since Ravin was
    decided, he said Tuesday. The balancing test between privacy rights
    and the harm that drugs do needs to be re-examined in light of the new
    information, he said.

    "I respect and will abide by" the Ravin/Noy ruling, Renkes said.

    "We're going to try to write a law the Supreme Court would uphold," he
    said. "We're going to take a fairly methodical approach."

    Renkes said he envisions extensive legislative hearings, laying out a
    complete record of the importance of anti-marijuana laws and the
    damage done by legalizing even small amounts. Should the Legislature
    pass a new law, and should it be challenged, the courts would have a
    complete record on which to base a new decision, he said.

    People familiar with drug prosecutions said the Ravin/Noy ruling
    probably won't have much effect on who goes to jail. People are almost
    never charged only with possession in their home of less than four
    ounces, said Anchorage attorney Karen Bretz, who has defended drug
    cases in the Mat-Su. Most of her cases deal with larger amounts, she
    said.

    "I think it will encourage the police to use their resources for more
    productive things than prosecuting marijuana cases," Bretz said.

    Renkes and Jason Brandeis, staff attorney for the Alaska Civil
    Liberties Union, both warned that possession of marijuana is still
    against federal law.

    "The feds can break into your house if you have an ounce of marijuana,
    and you can be charged federally," Brandeis said.

    Renkes said the state does not intend to feed the names of home-use
    suspects to the feds for prosecution, but state law enforcement will
    continue to work closely with federal agencies on drug cases that
    interest both entities, he said, regardless of the amount of drugs
    involved.

    Lawyers said the Ravin/Noy ruling does not appear to affect a November
    ballot initiative that removes all civil and criminal penalties for
    adult growth, possession and sale of marijuana and proposes regulation
    similar to alcohol controls.

Comments

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!