2014 Ballot Measure 2 discussion

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
As another members thread was needlessly high jacked for a valid argument, I have created this thread!

***I by no means am an expert on BM2 or any other laws or regulations concerning marijuana in Alaska***




This excerpt is taken directly from: http://www.regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/about

Initiative Summary
The following is an overview of the proposed ballot measure. 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.

Alaska Marijuana Laws In 1975, the Alaska Legislature approved a bill to decriminalize private possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, replacing the possibility of time in jail with a civil fine of up to $100. Just 11 days later, the Alaska Supreme Court removed all penalties for privately possessing up to four ounces of marijuana and up to 24 noncommercial marijuana plants inside one’s home.
The Ravin v. State decision held that the state law prohibiting possession of small amounts of marijuana violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of Alaska, noting that the state had failed to prove that using marijuana in one’s home caused significant harm to the user or to others. In 1982, in light of the Ravin ruling, the legislature dropped the $100 civil fine, making possession of up to four ounces of marijuana in one’s home legal under state law.
In 1990, voters approved the Alaska Marijuana Criminalization Act by a margin of 54% to 46%, making possession of any amount of marijuana a criminal offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and up to a $1,000 fine.
The Alaska Court of Appeals overturned the law in 2003, upholding the ruling in Ravin and noting that the 1990 ballot initiative did not change the right of privacy guaranteed by the state constitution.
In 2006, the Alaska Legislature passed a law to once again criminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Despite the fact that it did not actually overturn the ruling in Ravin, there were more than 800 arrests for marijuana-related offenses in 2012, the vast majority of which were for simple possession.
Fortunately, in 1998, voters approved the Alaska Medical Marijuana Act by a margin of 59% to 41%, allowing individuals with serious illnesses such as cancer and HIV/AIDS to use and grow limited amounts of medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it.
From 1975 until 1990, Alaska had some of the most reasonable marijuana laws in the nation. But during the course of the last 23 years, they have become needlessly confusing and inconsistently enforced.
Alaskans deserve a more sensible and consistent marijuana policy, and in November 2014, voters will have the opportunity to adopt one.

- See more at: http://www.regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/about#sthash.lreMKdcE.dpuf
 

bigbudmicro

Active Member
yes it reduces our current limits, your words exactly! For growth it limits from 24 with 6 flowering to 6 with 3 flowering, AND possession is limited to WHERE IT IS GROWN. When I read BM2 in april there was a propsed limit to half an ounce outside your home, now it shows that possession outside the home is still not okay.... How do you get home from a proposed "retail store" without commiting a crime?....

I agree to disagree. As you are being aggressive and I have hit a sore spot, I move that this should go back to being a thread for a RIU picnic!
So you go from discussing weight limits to plant limits? Can you really not stick to one thing?
Glad to see you finally pulled your head out of your ass and finally read the damn ballot measure
This legalizes cannabis possession for adults 21 and over, how does bringing it home from a retail store make you commit a crime? You don't have to be home to "possess" cannabis
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
I personally feel that the limitations laid down by current law are alright, maybe not perfect, but alright. as it stands, possession and growth in small amounts is NOT ILLEGAL. The rules for consumption/possession in different places (i.e. home, back yard, friends house, etc) are in a legal grey are.... BM2 clears up the grey area to basically "in your own home where you grow it". this does not include a pocket, vehicle glove box, or trunk, it does not include when traveling, or on another persons land/residence... what about if you grow in a hothouse? or shed?
I know that when diabetics travel they bring insulin... do I have to grow in an RV like walter white if I want to be medicated in Fairbanks or Wasilla or anywhere else I travel?
What does everyone think?

chime in whenever you're ready bigbudmicro!bongsmilie
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
So you go from discussing weight limits to plant limits? Can you really not stick to one thing?
Glad to see you finally pulled your head out of your ass and finally read the damn ballot measure
This legalizes cannabis possession for adults 21 and over, how does bringing it home from a retail store make you commit a crime? You don't have to be home to "possess" cannabis
weight limits are DIRECTLY related to growth limits when you grow your own!
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
So you go from discussing weight limits to plant limits? Can you really not stick to one thing?
Glad to see you finally pulled your head out of your ass and finally read the damn ballot measure
This legalizes cannabis possession for adults 21 and over, how does bringing it home from a retail store make you commit a crime? You don't have to be home to "possess" cannabis
BM2 never touches on possession outside the home, other than: public use is subject to a $100 fine
 

elkamino

Well-Known Member
Thanks for starting this thread, FrozenChozen! (As an AK angler and hunter with 2 freezers, I must admit I'm curious about the origins of your screen name...!)

Anyway, for me the most curious part of BM2 is that while it does appear to set plant and possession limits that are lower than provided for under Ravin v. State of Alaska, it also states explicitly in Chapter 38., Section 17.38.010 "Purpose of Findings" that:

"The people of the state of Alaska further declare that the provisions of this Act are not intended to diminish the right to privacy as interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court in Ravin v. State of Alaska."

In other words, the ballot measure is proposing stricter limits while also attempting to retain existing rights of privacy- in this case, 24 plants and 1-4(?) ounces in the home. But since not everyone has a "home," it seems to me that it would ultimately be discriminatory and therefore unlawful to allow possession solely to people while in their own home. Sure the writers of the ballot language face massive, entrenched roadblocks to getting this thing passed, and had to select language that's palatable to a majority of AK voters. But must it add further contradictions to our already f'd up, nanny state laws? I'd argue, NO.

Granted, AK's MJ laws have been systematically (and perhaps purposefully?) made more confusing over the past few decades by legislators and judges equally dismayed by the lack of legal clarity. This ultimately makes fixing them even more difficult, and is exactly why we need ballot measures (or legislation... are you listening, elected officials?!?!) that clear it up instead of muddying it. Sadly, it doesn't appear we'll have that anytime soon, as even members of a community as like-minded as RIU can't agree on whether BM2 is a good thing.

Now, I'm a personal use med guy, and feel (almost) well-enough protected under existing laws. But obviously the war on cannabis is a false construct, rooted in religious fundamentalism and racism and other bullshit to thick to get into here that screws up thousands and thousands of lives- including some of my friends. But even worse, even the notion of requiring medical mj laws to be "legal" is Draconian and fucked up, and I take huge exception at any government that feels compelled to OUTLAW ITS PEOPLE FROM USING A PLANT FOR WHATEVER REASON, especially one as useful as cannabis.

Anyway, I'm no legal expert, and I'm sure there's more stuff in this measure I'll have questions about . But for now I'm basically wondering 2 things:
1.) Do y'all think the BM2's language to prevent the measure from diminishing protections granted under Ravin is strong enough?
2.) Are we required to have a "home" to enjoy protections previously granted under Ravin? (And, I guess, can an RV be considered a "home"?)
 

bigbudmicro

Active Member
Anyway, I'm no legal expert, and I'm sure there's more stuff in this measure I'll have questions about . But for now I'm basically wondering 2 things:
1.) Do y'all think the BM2's language to prevent the measure from diminishing protections granted under Ravin is strong enough?
2.) Are we required to have a "home" to enjoy protections previously granted under Ravin? (And, I guess, can an RV be considered a "home"?)
1. No as the Alaska constitutional right to privacy is what protects you for possession of up to 4 ounces in your home. The way I see it, BM2 is written to protect individual citizens outside their home. There are still many things that will need to be amended IMO, plant limits and weight limits being very small(I guess that's the California in me talking, they are discussing legalizing 12lbs for home use down here that's 192x larger than Alaska's proposed limit)

2. This is where I feel it gets pretty tricky, but I believe you could make the argument in court that your vehicle or RV is your home. Public consumption is not very well defined, and I see it very difficult to enforce. Under BM2 it would be illegal to use a portable vaporizer in public, yet it is still ok for nicotine smokers to use the same device is public. Then there is the whole range of edibles and drinks that can't be eaten, even raw cannabis juice(which has no psychoactive effects).
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
Thanks for starting this thread, FrozenChozen! (As an AK angler and hunter with 2 freezers, I must admit I'm curious about the origins of your screen name...!)

Anyway, for me the most curious part of BM2 is that while it does appear to set plant and possession limits that are lower than provided for under Ravin v. State of Alaska, it also states explicitly in Chapter 38., Section 17.38.010 "Purpose of Findings" that:
"The people of the state of Alaska further declare that the provisions of this Act are not intended to diminish the right to privacy as interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court in Ravin v. State of Alaska."
Anyway, I'm no legal expert, and I'm sure there's more stuff in this measure I'll have questions about . But for now I'm basically wondering 2 things:
1.) Do y'all think the BM2's language to prevent the measure from diminishing protections granted under Ravin is strong enough?
2.) Are we required to have a "home" to enjoy protections previously granted under Ravin? (And, I guess, can an RV be considered a "home"?)
I as well hunt and fish, and have a few freezers! I see us all as "FrozenChozen" we were "chozen" (or chose) to live here where a wintery freeze stays nearly 8 months of the year, there are also a few underlying factors that went in my S/N that I will choose not to go into at this time
on with the discussion!
1- the language is NOT strong enough, especially since new more strict limitations are set forth here in
2- according to ravin v state, no! a private residence/ domicile grants privacy, even a temporary structure, such as a tent or gazebo with "walls" provides us indemnity for public scrutiny.
2b-I brought up the RV thing because BM2 explicitly says "in your home where it is grown". Ravin laws would currently provide us protection inside an RV as it is a private domicile (when parked), but it seems like BM2 seeks to change that
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
1. No as the Alaska constitutional right to privacy is what protects you for possession of up to 4 ounces in your home. The way I see it, BM2 is written to protect individual citizens outside their home. There are still many things that will need to be amended IMO, plant limits and weight limits being very small(I guess that's the California in me talking, they are discussing legalizing 12lbs for home use down here that's 192x larger than Alaska's proposed limit)

2. This is where I feel it gets pretty tricky, but I believe you could make the argument in court that your vehicle or RV is your home. Public consumption is not very well defined, and I see it very difficult to enforce. Under BM2 it would be illegal to use a portable vaporizer in public, yet it is still ok for nicotine smokers to use the same device is public. Then there is the whole range of edibles and drinks that can't be eaten, even raw cannabis juice(which has no psychoactive effects).
1- there is NOTHING in bm2 to "PROTECT" you/us outside the home...
2- public consumption is clearly defined as "outside of the home that it was grown".... how is that hard to enforce? you wanna talk about splitting hairs? of course a nicotine user can use a vaporizer outside, smoking cigarettes is still legal, when you put thc tincture on it, it then becomes a different ball game.... plus drinking a drink or eating a brownie is still consumption(still following?)...

3. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN CALIFORNIA, NO ONE HERE CARES WHAT THEIR "PROPOSED" LIMITS MIGHT BE
 

elkamino

Well-Known Member
Thanks but then I have another question: why didn't the crafters of BM2 not include more explicit language, language that clears up instead of further muddies the issue? Is it just because they need support from a majority of AK voters, and (based on AK's history of not passing progressive mj legislation) were hesitant to ask for too much?

I mean I assume it wasn't written by the Anti's, right?!
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
Thanks but then I have another question: why didn't the crafters of BM2 not include more explicit language, language that clears up instead of further muddies the issue? Is it just because they need support from a majority of AK voters, and (based on AK's history of not passing progressive mj legislation) were hesitant to ask for too much?

I mean I assume it wasn't written by the Anti's, right?!
I think the writers were more concerned with "getting it out there" than anything else as:

- 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.
I would ASSUME the MCB has final say about the logistics...
I mean I assume it wasn't written by the Anti's, right?!
:leaf:GOD I HOPE NOT!:leaf:
 

bigbudmicro

Active Member
1- there is NOTHING in bm2 to "PROTECT" you/us outside the home...
2- public consumption is clearly defined as "outside of the home that it was grown".... how is that hard to enforce? you wanna talk about splitting hairs? of course a nicotine user can use a vaporizer outside, smoking cigarettes is still legal, when you put thc tincture on it, it then becomes a different ball game.... plus drinking a drink or eating a brownie is still consumption(still following?)...

3. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN CALIFORNIA, NO ONE HERE CARES WHAT THEIR "PROPOSED" LIMITS MIGHT BE
Were you dropped on your head?
Read the full initiative text

"
Sec. 17.38.020. Personal use of marijuana.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the
following acts, by persons 21 years of age or older, are lawful and shall not be a criminal or civil
offense under Alaska law or the law of any political subdivision of Alaska or be a basis for seizure
or forfeiture of assets under Alaska law:
(a) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce
or less of marijuana;

(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three
or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on
the premises where the plants were grown;
(c) Transferring one ounce or less of marijuana and up to six immature marijuana plants to a
person who is 21 years of age or older without remuneration;
(d) Consumption of marijuana, except that nothing in this chapter shall permit the consumption of
marijuana in public; and
(e) Assisting another person who is 21 years of age or older in any of the acts described in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section."

So how exactly does this not protect you from possessing outside your home?
Seriously dude, go back to school and learn to read
It's no wonder the initiative is written so poorly, when politicians only have nutjobs like you to listen to, they never get the whole picture.
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
Were you dropped on your head?
(a) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce
or less of marijuana;

(d) Consumption of marijuana, except that NOTHING in this chapter shall permit the consumption of
marijuana in PUBLIC; and
So how exactly does this not protect you from possessing outside your home?
like I said! this doesn't protect you while CONSUMING outside the home! you don't realize what I am saying do you?
maybe I didn't previously see the new PROPOSED Alaska statutes on transportation... so fuckin sue me! this was in no part included in what I read about BM2, it is information that I was not entirely aware of and am willing to admit I am wrong.

BM2 does protect POSSESSION/TRANSPORTATION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MMJ!

but that still shows that under current right to privacy, we ARE allowed to possess a GREATER quantity of growing plants, and a GREATER amount of dried meds in home....
correct?

*edit*
I see now where my confusion is
I was unaware of sec. 17.38.020 as it is currently amended. when I read it, possession outside the home by an unlicensed individual was still a criminal offense, punishable by a $100 fine and confiscation of unlicensed/unregistered medication
 
Last edited:

AKrbb907

Well-Known Member
Were you dropped on your head?
Read the full initiative text

"
Sec. 17.38.020. Personal use of marijuana.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the
following acts, by persons 21 years of age or older, are lawful and shall not be a criminal or civil
offense under Alaska law or the law of any political subdivision of Alaska or be a basis for seizure
or forfeiture of assets under Alaska law:
(a) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce
or less of marijuana;

(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three
or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on
the premises where the plants were grown;
(c) Transferring one ounce or less of marijuana and up to six immature marijuana plants to a
person who is 21 years of age or older without remuneration;
(d) Consumption of marijuana, except that nothing in this chapter shall permit the consumption of
marijuana in public; and
(e) Assisting another person who is 21 years of age or older in any of the acts described in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section."

So how exactly does this not protect you from possessing outside your home?
Seriously dude, go back to school and learn to read
It's no wonder the initiative is written so poorly, when politicians only have nutjobs like you to listen to, they never get the whole picture.
We are trying to have conversations here not talk shit to each other. If you have valid points make them. You attacking another member for debating something w you just makes you look like an asshat
 

AKcoco

Member
I'm all for the law passing, 3 reasons.
1) It will cut the cashcroppers off at the knees.
2) More people will smoke in more places in Alaska with less BS.
3) It will be a gut punch to all jackasses in this state that have been keeping their boots on our necks for far too long.
 

FrozenChozen

Well-Known Member
I'm all for the law passing, 3 reasons.
1) It will cut the cashcroppers off at the knees.
2) More people will smoke in more places in Alaska with less BS.
3) It will be a gut punch to all jackasses in this state that have been keeping their boots on our necks for far too long.
finally something we all can agree on!
 
Top