10 ms·

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

by 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?
- sethrin 13y ago
  In practice police do not pursue charges for marijuana possession unless it's bagged for retail. The general idea seems to be, that you can do what you want in the privacy of your home, but smoking marijuana is not socially appropriate. It's not actually the law that's the problem. We have had ballot measures to legalize the retail of marijuana, and so far the public opinion seems to be against it. I gather that people are more or less happy with the situation as it is. You may be confusing the law for something that actually exists, when in reality, and especially in Alaska, the question is merely what category of offense may provoke an officer to arrest you. I cannot admit to having practical experience growing, buying, and selling marijuana, nor tell of any experience that I have had in conversing with uniformed law enforcement officers about said activities. However, another person of my acquaintance suggests that marijuana use and trafficking is widely tolerated. Another person of more distant acquaintance had the curious story of having had much confiscated growing equipment returned to them out of police custody. It is very important to note that Alaska, being in the northern latitudes, has most of its population in areas which receive less than 5 hours of daylight at the solstice. In humans lack of exposure to daylight is known to produce vitamin D deficiency, which can result in depression among other symptoms, and this disease is both prevalent and largely untreated. This to my mind is the strongest correlating factor, but the fact remains that Alaska has extremely high rates of alcoholism, murder, child and other physical abuse, vehicular accidents, as well as other drug problems. No one is going to call the cops if you're smoking a joint, even in public. They will think you're an asshole, and being an asshole is often a good way to be arrested. If you are drunk and weaving, and you have a bag in the glove compartment, you will probably be busted for both. If you're not going out of your way to bring the fact that you smoke pot into public view, everyone will be okay with that. That may not be your definition of legal, but it is certainly a definition of legal, and as much as you or I might wish it to be otherwise, it's pretty hard to argue with the vox populi.
  - rosser 13y ago
    I think people are missing the distinction I'm trying to make. It's, as I said in my original post, a subtle and mostly technical one, so that's not unforeseeable. Once again, for posterity's sake, then: there's a difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization", namely the one between tolerated and allowed. Per my reading and understanding of how marijuana possession and use is handled in Alaska, it falls in the former category. What Uruguay has done falls in the latter. They didn't merely say, "There's no penalty for committing this crime." They didn't merely say, "We're going to make prosecution of this crime our lowest priority." They said, "This is not a crime." That's what's different here, and it's an important, but apparently overlooked distinction that I think needs pointing out. That's all I'm trying to say here.

by whyenot 13y ago

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?
sethrin 13y ago
In practice police do not pursue charges for marijuana possession unless it's bagged for retail. The general idea seems to be, that you can do what you want in the privacy of your home, but smoking marijuana is not socially appropriate. It's not actually the law that's the problem. We have had ballot measures to legalize the retail of marijuana, and so far the public opinion seems to be against it. I gather that people are more or less happy with the situation as it is. You may be confusing the law for something that actually exists, when in reality, and especially in Alaska, the question is merely what category of offense may provoke an officer to arrest you. I cannot admit to having practical experience growing, buying, and selling marijuana, nor tell of any experience that I have had in conversing with uniformed law enforcement officers about said activities. However, another person of my acquaintance suggests that marijuana use and trafficking is widely tolerated. Another person of more distant acquaintance had the curious story of having had much confiscated growing equipment returned to them out of police custody. It is very important to note that Alaska, being in the northern latitudes, has most of its population in areas which receive less than 5 hours of daylight at the solstice. In humans lack of exposure to daylight is known to produce vitamin D deficiency, which can result in depression among other symptoms, and this disease is both prevalent and largely untreated. This to my mind is the strongest correlating factor, but the fact remains that Alaska has extremely high rates of alcoholism, murder, child and other physical abuse, vehicular accidents, as well as other drug problems. No one is going to call the cops if you're smoking a joint, even in public. They will think you're an asshole, and being an asshole is often a good way to be arrested. If you are drunk and weaving, and you have a bag in the glove compartment, you will probably be busted for both. If you're not going out of your way to bring the fact that you smoke pot into public view, everyone will be okay with that. That may not be your definition of legal, but it is certainly a definition of legal, and as much as you or I might wish it to be otherwise, it's pretty hard to argue with the vox populi.
- rosser 13y ago
  I think people are missing the distinction I'm trying to make. It's, as I said in my original post, a subtle and mostly technical one, so that's not unforeseeable. Once again, for posterity's sake, then: there's a difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization", namely the one between tolerated and allowed. Per my reading and understanding of how marijuana possession and use is handled in Alaska, it falls in the former category. What Uruguay has done falls in the latter. They didn't merely say, "There's no penalty for committing this crime." They didn't merely say, "We're going to make prosecution of this crime our lowest priority." They said, "This is not a crime." That's what's different here, and it's an important, but apparently overlooked distinction that I think needs pointing out. That's all I'm trying to say here.