4 ms·

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

by 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?

by whyenot 13y ago

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?