G
Guest
Could someone familiar with Alaska's marujuana laws please explain why so many people from alaska say its legal to have under 3 oz's or whatever it is and a few plants if its for personal use
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
G
Guest
In 1975, the Alaskan Supreme Court ruled that individuals could possess up to four ounces of cannabis for private use.
That law has been recently upheld. The police and troopers only get involved if it is a massive operation.
In they eyes of federal law....it is still illegal.
LEO has said on many occasions that meth is a higher concern and that all us "growers in the valley(matanuska), are off the hook"
lol....good enough for me.
That law has been recently upheld. The police and troopers only get involved if it is a massive operation.
In they eyes of federal law....it is still illegal.
LEO has said on many occasions that meth is a higher concern and that all us "growers in the valley(matanuska), are off the hook"
lol....good enough for me.
G
Guest
Alaska Hemp History 101
Alaska Hemp History 101
If you're willing to entertain a long-winded and thorough reply, I can answer your question to the best of my ability.
In 1972 the State of Alaska's constitution was amended to include the right of privacy, Article I, Section XXII. It plainly stated that, "The right of the People to privacy shall not be infringed" (no ifs, ands, or buts).
In order for the State to take action against a 'private behavior,' it had to establish that there was 'compelling interest' for state regulation or intervention in that behavior. 'Compelling interest' is a legal threshold and term.
In about 1974, Irwin Ravin, then an attorney in Alaska, was pulled over for a traffic violation. Chances are that if you ask Irwin today what it was for, he'll tell you the same thing he told me years ago; that it was either a muffler or a tail-light issue.... he doesn't remember which.
He had a small amount of pot in his pocket. In a traffic stop where a citation is issued, your signature on the ticket is your bond. It's why you're permitted to leave instead of going to jail. They can still opt to take you to jail due to the SCOTUS ruling several years ago, but that was not the case then. However (!!!!) if you refused to sign your ticket, then you were/are, in essence, refusing to accept the terms and refusing to give your 'bond.'
Irwin knowingly refused, was hauled in, searched arrested, and charged with possession. He knew what he was doing.
He asserted through his atttorney, Bob Wagstaff, that Alaska's laws of cannabis prohibition interfererd with an otherwise private and innocuous or benign behavior.
By asking the court to define the parameters of privacy as it relates to cannabis use by adults, he didn't get restricted to talking of cannabis in a car, which is what he was located in when he was busted. His civil case and his traffic case and related bust were essentially separate cases. Therefore he was not restricted to dealing only with possession in a car.
Instead, Chief Justice Rabinowitz, after much expert witness testimony, wrote the majority opinion that cannabis use in the homes of adults was of relatively little threat to the state (I'm paraphrasing here, mind you, and then-Chief Justice Rabinowitz is now deceased, so asking him for clarification is not likely to bear fruit).
The rest of the rather turbulent history can be found in the thread on this forum re. Alaska's 'methi-juana bill FAILS,' posted by MARS2112, wherein I elaborated in great depth on that lengthy and turbulent history.
Regards,
moose eater
Alaska Hemp History 101
If you're willing to entertain a long-winded and thorough reply, I can answer your question to the best of my ability.
In 1972 the State of Alaska's constitution was amended to include the right of privacy, Article I, Section XXII. It plainly stated that, "The right of the People to privacy shall not be infringed" (no ifs, ands, or buts).
In order for the State to take action against a 'private behavior,' it had to establish that there was 'compelling interest' for state regulation or intervention in that behavior. 'Compelling interest' is a legal threshold and term.
In about 1974, Irwin Ravin, then an attorney in Alaska, was pulled over for a traffic violation. Chances are that if you ask Irwin today what it was for, he'll tell you the same thing he told me years ago; that it was either a muffler or a tail-light issue.... he doesn't remember which.
He had a small amount of pot in his pocket. In a traffic stop where a citation is issued, your signature on the ticket is your bond. It's why you're permitted to leave instead of going to jail. They can still opt to take you to jail due to the SCOTUS ruling several years ago, but that was not the case then. However (!!!!) if you refused to sign your ticket, then you were/are, in essence, refusing to accept the terms and refusing to give your 'bond.'
Irwin knowingly refused, was hauled in, searched arrested, and charged with possession. He knew what he was doing.
He asserted through his atttorney, Bob Wagstaff, that Alaska's laws of cannabis prohibition interfererd with an otherwise private and innocuous or benign behavior.
By asking the court to define the parameters of privacy as it relates to cannabis use by adults, he didn't get restricted to talking of cannabis in a car, which is what he was located in when he was busted. His civil case and his traffic case and related bust were essentially separate cases. Therefore he was not restricted to dealing only with possession in a car.
Instead, Chief Justice Rabinowitz, after much expert witness testimony, wrote the majority opinion that cannabis use in the homes of adults was of relatively little threat to the state (I'm paraphrasing here, mind you, and then-Chief Justice Rabinowitz is now deceased, so asking him for clarification is not likely to bear fruit).
The rest of the rather turbulent history can be found in the thread on this forum re. Alaska's 'methi-juana bill FAILS,' posted by MARS2112, wherein I elaborated in great depth on that lengthy and turbulent history.
Regards,
moose eater
G
Guest
Point of correction; there was absolutely NO aggregate weight limit of four ounces in the Ravin Decision of 1975. That limit was the product of the 1982 codification of Ravin by the State legislature, which was drafted and approved in Fall of 1982 and went into effect in March of 1983.
From 1975 until 1983 March there were no weight limits in the home, and a limit of one ounce in public, providing that it wasn't publicly used or displayed.
The Potter's Flats bust in 1978 had the Judge order the return of 23 lbs to the owner (though the Troopers destroyed it instead) and a similar case in Kenai that same year had another judge order the return of one lb. to its owner. The attorney in the second case was Bill Bixby, now of Valdez. I don't recall who the attorney was in the Potter's Flats incident.
When the 1983 codification took effect, public possession was completely criminalized.
Ravin v. State '75 and the 1975 legislature simply stated, 'small amounts for personal use.' From 1975 until 1982, whatever a person said was for personal use, was for personal use, though some of the cops tried to set precedents and failed, as in the two previously mentioned cases. 'Small amounts' is a pretty vague amount, no?
regards
moose eater
From 1975 until 1983 March there were no weight limits in the home, and a limit of one ounce in public, providing that it wasn't publicly used or displayed.
The Potter's Flats bust in 1978 had the Judge order the return of 23 lbs to the owner (though the Troopers destroyed it instead) and a similar case in Kenai that same year had another judge order the return of one lb. to its owner. The attorney in the second case was Bill Bixby, now of Valdez. I don't recall who the attorney was in the Potter's Flats incident.
When the 1983 codification took effect, public possession was completely criminalized.
Ravin v. State '75 and the 1975 legislature simply stated, 'small amounts for personal use.' From 1975 until 1982, whatever a person said was for personal use, was for personal use, though some of the cops tried to set precedents and failed, as in the two previously mentioned cases. 'Small amounts' is a pretty vague amount, no?
regards
moose eater
Last edited:
G
Guest
thanks thats exactly the information i was looking for
So why is it so different than here? Location or what? they have their agendas in the right direction atleast
So why is it so different than here? Location or what? they have their agendas in the right direction atleast
G
Guest
State constitution comparisons
State constitution comparisons
^^^ There are several other states that have pretty much verbatim language in their privacy clauses. Oregon and Hawaii are two of them.
Alaska has always had the wide open spaces (2.5 x's the size of Texas, as long as you don't wring the water out of it), and a belief in rugged individualism.
There was a time that we actually LIVED our belief in rugged individualism, instead of just paying lip service to it. Which is why I fear that if the Ravin Decision goes back to court, it may not do as well as it did in 1975. That less-than-concretely-defined threshold may have moved a touch in 31 years.... People have gotten soft, nosey, narrow, fascist... etc. etc.
The Supreme Court didn't re-examine any medical evidence in the 2004 case of David Noy, mostly because the State's DA had screwed up, and out of absent mindedness, pure ego, naivete', or cockiness, had assumed that he didn't need to argue seriously about Ravin and scientific evidence. He had those impressive words on paper instead!!! ;^>)
He learned too late in the process that he DID, indeed, need to take that decision seriously, and by that time it was too late.
You can't change points of appeal mid-stream in court.
So when you hear poor ol' Frank Murkowski lying through his teeth saying, "The court wouldn't let us assert medical evidence to prove marijuana's harmful effects," (sob, sob, whimper, whimper, whine, whine) you can tell him he's full of shit!
The courts, in fact, INVITED him to bring such a case. but like the rest of us, he has to do it by the rules. And he's not accustomed to people telling him that!
Regards,
moose eater
State constitution comparisons
^^^ There are several other states that have pretty much verbatim language in their privacy clauses. Oregon and Hawaii are two of them.
Alaska has always had the wide open spaces (2.5 x's the size of Texas, as long as you don't wring the water out of it), and a belief in rugged individualism.
There was a time that we actually LIVED our belief in rugged individualism, instead of just paying lip service to it. Which is why I fear that if the Ravin Decision goes back to court, it may not do as well as it did in 1975. That less-than-concretely-defined threshold may have moved a touch in 31 years.... People have gotten soft, nosey, narrow, fascist... etc. etc.
The Supreme Court didn't re-examine any medical evidence in the 2004 case of David Noy, mostly because the State's DA had screwed up, and out of absent mindedness, pure ego, naivete', or cockiness, had assumed that he didn't need to argue seriously about Ravin and scientific evidence. He had those impressive words on paper instead!!! ;^>)
He learned too late in the process that he DID, indeed, need to take that decision seriously, and by that time it was too late.
You can't change points of appeal mid-stream in court.
So when you hear poor ol' Frank Murkowski lying through his teeth saying, "The court wouldn't let us assert medical evidence to prove marijuana's harmful effects," (sob, sob, whimper, whimper, whine, whine) you can tell him he's full of shit!
The courts, in fact, INVITED him to bring such a case. but like the rest of us, he has to do it by the rules. And he's not accustomed to people telling him that!
Regards,
moose eater
Last edited:
G
Guest
gracias moose, very interesting information, when would this Ravin Decision go back to court and in your opinion what would the outcome be
G
Guest
Mahle, SB 74, and nightmares of ridicule for Irwin's child
Mahle, SB 74, and nightmares of ridicule for Irwin's child
There was a fellow in the Mat-Su Valley who fell prey to a search warrant based on odor before the Crocker case in Anchor Point forbade that nonsense. His last name is Mahle. (pronounced 'molly')... (As in State of Alaska v. Mahle).
After Crocker's case saw the State Appellate Court rule that odor wasn't sufficient for a warrant, Mahle appealed.
Problem is, as I understand it, Mr. Mahle had some questionable weaponry on hand, ganja in quantity, and other assorted party favors as well.
The Murkowski Administration and I have about one thing in common; over-kill. If there's more than one way to approach something, do 'em all!!
Murkie is holding Mr. Mahle's case up as evidence as to why the cops should be able to get warrants based upon smell, arguing that without such warrants 'bad and dangerous men like Mr. Mahle will roam freely..' or some such shit.
Never mind that good old fashioned police work would've eventually caught Mr. Mahle, but why make a fascist put down his/her doughnut to actually break a sweat, right?
Mahle is on appeal, and Murkie is aiming squarely at Ravin.
Furthermore, if HB 149 (which now contains SB 74) becomes law, there will be a lightning-speed filing against its enforcement for violating Ravin and the right to privacy, in which case OUR side will be bringing it.
Either way, it could be a very interesting (and potentially dismal) year.
Makes me wanna' eat out of anxiety actually, and I have a jalapeno-cheddar moose hot dog simmering away right now with my name on it.
Regards,
moose eater
Mahle, SB 74, and nightmares of ridicule for Irwin's child
There was a fellow in the Mat-Su Valley who fell prey to a search warrant based on odor before the Crocker case in Anchor Point forbade that nonsense. His last name is Mahle. (pronounced 'molly')... (As in State of Alaska v. Mahle).
After Crocker's case saw the State Appellate Court rule that odor wasn't sufficient for a warrant, Mahle appealed.
Problem is, as I understand it, Mr. Mahle had some questionable weaponry on hand, ganja in quantity, and other assorted party favors as well.
The Murkowski Administration and I have about one thing in common; over-kill. If there's more than one way to approach something, do 'em all!!
Murkie is holding Mr. Mahle's case up as evidence as to why the cops should be able to get warrants based upon smell, arguing that without such warrants 'bad and dangerous men like Mr. Mahle will roam freely..' or some such shit.
Never mind that good old fashioned police work would've eventually caught Mr. Mahle, but why make a fascist put down his/her doughnut to actually break a sweat, right?
Mahle is on appeal, and Murkie is aiming squarely at Ravin.
Furthermore, if HB 149 (which now contains SB 74) becomes law, there will be a lightning-speed filing against its enforcement for violating Ravin and the right to privacy, in which case OUR side will be bringing it.
Either way, it could be a very interesting (and potentially dismal) year.
Makes me wanna' eat out of anxiety actually, and I have a jalapeno-cheddar moose hot dog simmering away right now with my name on it.
Regards,
moose eater
Last edited:
G
Guest
so basically Alaska has a different constitution than ours, why is this?
What is so different when it comes to privacy rights
What is so different when it comes to privacy rights
Last edited:
G
Guest
Dinner Just ended
Dinner Just ended
I've just finished devouring another fine 'moose dog,' and will give my opinion in answer to your question above.
The United States was a reference to the unification of 50 essentially sovereign, or quasi-sovereign states.
The United States has a constitution for the federal government, but there is a concept called states' rights that is referenced fairly plainly in the federal constitution's Bill of Rights located in the 10th Amendment, that, once upon a time, guaranteed that the states reserved the authority to decide for themselves any issues where those specific powers weren't already granted to the federal government. Oregon's recently-decided assisted suicide ('death with dignity') law was, in part, based upon this concept.
Originally, the federal government's authority was extremely limited in the U.S.
Since that time 'we' (used very loosely at my home) have cultivated an 'uber government' of sorts; the gigantic empire that seeks to swallow up the sovereignty of not only the respective (formerly quasi-sovereign) states, but much of the globe, as many of you can attest from afar.
Each state still has its own constitution, like a corporation's by-laws, it gives it a description of 'entity' or a sort of personhood. But the fed's egos have grown like they're eating steroids for breakfast, and the neo-cons of today (like Shrubco), and the globalist Dems like Hillary, have no problem attempting to assert their own version of federal power onto the states.
I could go on, but I won't.... mostly 'cause I realized that after my moose dog, I failed to eat any corn!!
regards!!
moose eater
Dinner Just ended
I've just finished devouring another fine 'moose dog,' and will give my opinion in answer to your question above.
The United States was a reference to the unification of 50 essentially sovereign, or quasi-sovereign states.
The United States has a constitution for the federal government, but there is a concept called states' rights that is referenced fairly plainly in the federal constitution's Bill of Rights located in the 10th Amendment, that, once upon a time, guaranteed that the states reserved the authority to decide for themselves any issues where those specific powers weren't already granted to the federal government. Oregon's recently-decided assisted suicide ('death with dignity') law was, in part, based upon this concept.
Originally, the federal government's authority was extremely limited in the U.S.
Since that time 'we' (used very loosely at my home) have cultivated an 'uber government' of sorts; the gigantic empire that seeks to swallow up the sovereignty of not only the respective (formerly quasi-sovereign) states, but much of the globe, as many of you can attest from afar.
Each state still has its own constitution, like a corporation's by-laws, it gives it a description of 'entity' or a sort of personhood. But the fed's egos have grown like they're eating steroids for breakfast, and the neo-cons of today (like Shrubco), and the globalist Dems like Hillary, have no problem attempting to assert their own version of federal power onto the states.
I could go on, but I won't.... mostly 'cause I realized that after my moose dog, I failed to eat any corn!!
regards!!
moose eater
Last edited:
G
Guest
haha gotta eat some corn to diffuse that bomb
I get the picture pretty much, just needed verification, gracias
I get the picture pretty much, just needed verification, gracias
G
Guest
You're more than welcome.
The more persons know, whether it be about pharmacology, their rights, their history, precedents, or almost anything, the better off the citizenry will be. We're WAY past time to reform our governments!! Knowledge is but one of the tools to make that happen. Run with it!! Just as far, fast, and as hard as you can!!
"If not us, who?"
regards,
moose eater
The more persons know, whether it be about pharmacology, their rights, their history, precedents, or almost anything, the better off the citizenry will be. We're WAY past time to reform our governments!! Knowledge is but one of the tools to make that happen. Run with it!! Just as far, fast, and as hard as you can!!
"If not us, who?"
regards,
moose eater
Last edited:
G
Guest
Seems to me like force will only be the thing to work efficently, too bad not enough people are willing to stand up for what they believe in and die for it these days
Last edited:
G
Guest
Id rather die than run im my opinion, what did running ever do for anyone
