[mars2112]

-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: Allen Hopper <ahopper@aclu.org>
>Sent: Jul 11, 2006 11:00 PM
>To: aro@drugsense.org
>Subject: ARO: Alaska marijuana court victory
>
>Adults Have Privacy Right to Use Marijuana in the Home, Says Alaska
>Judge in Landmark Ruling
>

>ACLU Wins Multi-Year Battle to Protect Alaska Residents From Drug War
>Excesses
>
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>July 11, 2006

>
>CONTACT: Daniel Berger, (917) 602-2445; media@aclu.org: <mailto:media@aclu.org>
>
>JUNEAU - In a landmark ruling, an Alaska state court judge has upheld
>adults' right to possess and use small amounts of marijuana within their
>homes. The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law,
>said the ruling confirmed that the state constitution protects adults
>who use and possess marijuana in their homes from police surveillance,
>searches, arrest and prosecution.
>

>"The drug war has wreaked havoc on the Bill of Rights and the U.S.
>Constitution, but fortunately many state constitutions still shield
>individuals from drug war excess," said Allen Hopper, an attorney
with
>the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "This ruling is incredibly
significant
>from a national perspective, because there are a number of states with
>similar privacy rights in their constitutions that may afford
>protections to adult marijuana users."

>With the court's ruling, Alaska remains the only state in the nation in
>which adults are legally free to possess and use small amounts of
>marijuana within their homes.
>
>"The state of Alaska has charted a different course from that of the
>federal government's failed policy on marijuana," said Michael
>MacLeod-Ball, Executive Director of the ACLU of Alaska. "This ruling
>affirms Alaska's commitment to fundamental privacy rights over reefer
>madness."

>The ACLU filed suit against the State of Alaska after it passed a law
>earlier this year that would have re-criminalized adult use and
>possession of small amounts of marijuana within the home. Since 1975,
>the Alaska Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the state
>constitution's privacy provisions protect adults' possession of small
>amounts of marijuana in the home, and the state court's ruling relied in
>part on those decisions. A similar law was proposed in 2005 by Governor
>Frank Murkowski, but failed to pass following testimony by
>international, national and state scientific experts that adult use of
>marijuana is no more dangerous today than it was in 1975.
>
>In the 1975 ruling, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Ravin v. State
>that the state constitution's right to privacy protects adults who use
>and possess marijuana within the home from criminal prosecution.
>

>Judge Patricia Collins of the Juneau Superior Court relied on the Ravin
>decision to reaffirm that the relatively minor dangers associated with
>adult possession and use of small amounts of marijuana within the home
>do not justify government surveillance and searches of homes or criminal
>prosecution. Her ruling was issued late yesterday.
>

>The State of Alaska argued that since the 1975 Ravin decision, marijuana
>has become more potent and dangerous, justifying a revisiting of the
>Supreme Court's previous ruling. Judge Collins disagreed, stating in her
>opinion that the "[Ravin] decision is law until and unless the
supreme court takes contrary action."
>
>
>The ruling is online at:
>https://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/decri...l20060711.html
>
>The ACLU's legal papers are available at:
>https://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/decri...20060630.html: <
>https://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/decrim/26060lgl20060630.html>

>
>Additional background information on ACLU of Alaska v. State of Alaska
>can also be found at:
>https://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/decri...20060630.html: <
>https://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/decrim/26076prs20060630.html>
>

>
>Allen Hopper
>Senior Staff Attorney
>ACLU Drug Law Reform Project
>1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 333
>Santa Cruz, CA 95060
>831-471-9000
>831-471-9676 (fax)
>ahopper@aclu.org
>www.aclu.org/drugpolicy

[pico]

Funny how they say it is a 'landmark ruling'. It may have been a landmark ruling back in 1975, but the courts have reaffirmed ravin vs AK for years. In fact there is nothing landmark about this because the lower courts can't even change this law. I may be wrong but I am pretty sure this is the case.

The law where they tried to recriminalize marijuana posession was the Methijuana bill. They were like 'Meth is bad, we are going to make stiff penalties.......oh yeah and pot is illegal again too'. They just added the pot thing in to a bill for Meth. Nice try you republican fuck, but you can't just change a supreme court ruling like ravin vs AK that easy. Good thing the ACLU sued the state.

https://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,...345733,00.html

fucking republican fuck Murkowski

I do agree there is a meth problem. That shit is wacking people out.

[mean mr.mustard]

A step in the right direction on thin ice.

[pico]

actually it is a step backwards. We used to be able to have 4 ounces in our own home. Now it is only 1.

The ice isn't so thin in alaska, but this global warming thing is sure thinning it up.

3rd largest icefield in the world is in southeast. Right behind Antartica and Greenland.

[mean mr.mustard]

well... a couple weeks ago they weren't going to let you have any...
good news is good news.... keep your chin up :smile:

FUCK MURKOWSKI is damn right!!

last year I was in a Mat-su valley home when DOW and AK state troopers showed up for a moose poaching on the property.

the moose was shot in a neighbors yard...and died on friends property.

my friend has a greenhouse w/ less than 8 plants ....the cops and dow saw it.

they said they had no warrent and no reason to be there other than the dead moose...and they openly said they couldent get a warrent due to "ravin vs ak"

they all smiled gave props and left

homie cut his plants ....and threw them in a river that day...but was never asked about them again.

...even the cops know they cant touch a hobby/personal use guy in Alaska.

I hope this doesnt change.

I hope it doesn't either yukon

[SCF]

ACLU got some sht done! Lets clean up San Diego and show these counties not to fuck with the sick and disabled!

[SpacedCWBY]

Funny thing is, I'm not a resident of Alaska, but feel very strongly about the Ravin decision. It's just one more thing to add to Alaska's uniqueness. One more thing to make it that much more special.

I just read the NORML newsletter and about had a heart attack. Good for you folks!!! Now all you have to do is convince those fucking retards that voted for Fuckface the Republican that republicans are mean nasty people who only want the world to work their way. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but they don't get elected.

Good for you guys, I can't say it enough - CONGRATS!!!

I had emailed NORML a few months back and asked them about the laws up there. I was trying to convince my wife to move up there, but she won't budge. They wrote back and said that (at the time) 4 oz and 25 plants in your home for personal. Can you still have the plants legally?

Best wishes

[mars2112]

^^ my brother just got back from a month-long trip to alaska.. and is now making plans to move there in the next few months. he absolutely fell in love with the state. he said the cost of living wasn't as high as he thought it would be.

"Possession of less than 25 plants is protected under the Alaska Constitution’s right to privacy (See Ravin v. Alaska). Possession of 25 or more marijuana plants is “Misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree” and is punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 or five years in prison."

https://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4522