3 ms·

It has been legal to grow and posses (but not sell) marijuana in Alaska since 1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_non-medical_can

by whyenot 13y ago

It has been legal to grow and posses (but not sell) marijuana in Alaska since 1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Alaska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized...

rosser 13y ago
Decriminalization != legalization. It's a subtle, and admittedly pretty technical, point but still a rather important one in this context.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - Crito 13y ago
    Legalization puts gangs and smugglers out of business, while decriminalization only has the potential to give them more customers. Legalization has much more to offer society than decriminalization.
- whyenot 13y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. It is legal to possess and grow marijuana in Alaska. An example of decriminalization is California where possession used to be a misdemeanor but is now an infraction and punishable by at most a $100 fine. There is nothing subtle or technical about it.
  - rosser 13y ago
    No, it's not legal. There's no penalty for possession of up to 4oz, or 25 plants, in a private residence, but that's most emphatically not the same as legal. That's just "fully" decriminalized, in that specific context. Consider, however: having a single gram on your person when not in your private residence — presumably even if that single gram came from plants that you grew in yourself, in your private residence — is still punishable by a 90-day sentence a/o a $2000 fine. [1] I can't conceive how that situation fits any definition of "legal". [1] http://norml.org/laws/item/alaska-penalties http://norml.org/laws/item/alaska-penalties
    - whyenot 13y ago
      It is legal. Please don't redefine terms just because because they don't align with your own political point of view. > In Alaska, cannabis was decidedly legal (under state, but not federal, law) for in-home, personal use under the Ravin v. State ruling of 1975. This ruling allowed up to two ounces (57 g) of cannabis and cultivation of fewer than 25 plants for these purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States > 1975—Alaska Supreme Court rules in Ravin v. State that “possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected. ... read the rest of the article, it's a nice thumbnail history of the legality of marijuana in Alaska without the inherent spin from a political organization with a particular agenda such as NORML. http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/is-that-your-final-answer-alaska-s-long-strange-trip/article_0deff55e-d9dc-11e2-af7e-001a4bcf887a.html http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/is-that-your-final-answer...
      - rosser 13y ago
        Three things: First, I'm not redefining anything. Please consult Alaska statute, specifically § 11.71.040 through 11.71.060, and note that "Schedule Via", mentioned in each, includes only marijuana. Even possession of amounts less than one ounce is specifically listed as a crime, albeit not a terribly serious one. The court's ruling in Ravin v State does not change the law; it interprets it. The referenced statues may have been added after that ruling, but they have not yet been challenged. As such they are, if only technically, still the law. I doubt it's a very strictly enforced law, particularly at the scale of personal possession, but that does not change what is or isn't legal. Second, please don't attribute political views to me. You don't know what my views are, even on the subject at hand, and I'll bet the cash in my wallet (I just hit the ATM yesterday, so that's not an insubstantial amount) that you'd be wrong if you guessed. Finally, while I don't dispute for a second that NORML is biased and has an agenda, that agenda is specifically and unambiguously marijuana legalization. If pot were as legal in AK as you suggest, they would be trumpeting it as an example of how things should be, or at a minimum, shouting from the rooftops that, "Look, it's legal up there, and the place hasn't fallen apart!" They aren't doing that, are they?
    - 13y ago

by whyenot 13y ago

rosser 13y ago

Decriminalization != legalization. It's a subtle, and admittedly pretty technical, point but still a rather important one in this context.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- Crito 13y ago
  Legalization puts gangs and smugglers out of business, while decriminalization only has the potential to give them more customers. Legalization has much more to offer society than decriminalization.
whyenot 13y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. It is legal to possess and grow marijuana in Alaska. An example of decriminalization is California where possession used to be a misdemeanor but is now an infraction and punishable by at most a $100 fine. There is nothing subtle or technical about it.
- rosser 13y ago
  No, it's not legal. There's no penalty for possession of up to 4oz, or 25 plants, in a private residence, but that's most emphatically not the same as legal. That's just "fully" decriminalized, in that specific context. Consider, however: having a single gram on your person when not in your private residence — presumably even if that single gram came from plants that you grew in yourself, in your private residence — is still punishable by a 90-day sentence a/o a $2000 fine. [1] I can't conceive how that situation fits any definition of "legal". [1] http://norml.org/laws/item/alaska-penalties http://norml.org/laws/item/alaska-penalties
  - whyenot 13y ago
    It is legal. Please don't redefine terms just because because they don't align with your own political point of view. > In Alaska, cannabis was decidedly legal (under state, but not federal, law) for in-home, personal use under the Ravin v. State ruling of 1975. This ruling allowed up to two ounces (57 g) of cannabis and cultivation of fewer than 25 plants for these purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States > 1975—Alaska Supreme Court rules in Ravin v. State that “possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected. ... read the rest of the article, it's a nice thumbnail history of the legality of marijuana in Alaska without the inherent spin from a political organization with a particular agenda such as NORML. http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/is-that-your-final-answer-alaska-s-long-strange-trip/article_0deff55e-d9dc-11e2-af7e-001a4bcf887a.html http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/is-that-your-final-answer...
    - rosser 13y ago
      Three things: First, I'm not redefining anything. Please consult Alaska statute, specifically § 11.71.040 through 11.71.060, and note that "Schedule Via", mentioned in each, includes only marijuana. Even possession of amounts less than one ounce is specifically listed as a crime, albeit not a terribly serious one. The court's ruling in Ravin v State does not change the law; it interprets it. The referenced statues may have been added after that ruling, but they have not yet been challenged. As such they are, if only technically, still the law. I doubt it's a very strictly enforced law, particularly at the scale of personal possession, but that does not change what is or isn't legal. Second, please don't attribute political views to me. You don't know what my views are, even on the subject at hand, and I'll bet the cash in my wallet (I just hit the ATM yesterday, so that's not an insubstantial amount) that you'd be wrong if you guessed. Finally, while I don't dispute for a second that NORML is biased and has an agenda, that agenda is specifically and unambiguously marijuana legalization. If pot were as legal in AK as you suggest, they would be trumpeting it as an example of how things should be, or at a minimum, shouting from the rooftops that, "Look, it's legal up there, and the place hasn't fallen apart!" They aren't doing that, are they?
  - 13y ago