"Jodi" <hellofromjodi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<10kjaierhuti9c4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> I think what they said is that their constitutional right to privacy
> outweighed the voters initiative to recriminalize pot.
yeah -- both cases mentioned involved people on their own private
property, where detectives smelled the odor of marijuana and used it
as grounds to search inside the guys' own homes. if the constitution
permitted up to 4 oz. for private use in the home, the cops had no way
of knowing whether criminal activity -- more than a QP laying around
-- or it if was a couple of joints of really skunky stuff being
passed, which would have been legal -- just smelling the odor of
marijuana doesn't tell you how much of it is inside he private
residences of people who aren't engaging in any other illegal
activity.
alaska is interesting -- one of my nephews grew up in fairbanks, and
i've met folks FROM alaska IN california. it's not like any other
place i can think of in the U.S., that's for sure!
> What i find amazing is when they said (talking about an initiative on
their
> upcoming ballot):
>
> Quote: "This initiative specially calls on legislature to regulate
marijuana
> like
> alcohol," said Hinterberger, an associate professor of the biomedical
> program at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
>
> The Cannabis Decriminalization and Regulation Act opens the door for
> legislature to levy taxes and potentially providing revenue for the
state,
> Hinterberger said." Unquote
ok, would this pertin to the 'supremacy clause?' i know that in cali,
with the feds wanting to go after MEDICAL uesrs specifically, and the
local police often NOT wanting to comply with the feds' focus on
medical use, the 'supremacy clause' was invoked by the feds, in what i
considered to be a bogus manner, but it might not be considered such a
bogus point in this instance.
i'm not an attorney or constitutional expert, so this is my laic
undertanding of the 'supremacy clause' -- when something i illegal at
the federal level, and the states want to legalize it, federal law
takes supremacy.
the reason i thought it was bogus in cali is that, while marijuana is
illegal according to the federal drug schedule, the states have ALWAYS
been permitted to decide 'how illegal' -- simple possession can net
one anything from a small fine in cali, to 20 years in the pen in
certain other locations. some states send first-time drug offenders to
treatment programs; others want to scare them straight. california did
not say that marijuana was legal, it simply separated medical users
from recreational users. the state has the right to do that, and in
fact has done that. the feds' invocation of the S.C. was just an
excuse.
but in this instance, they're actually talkig about legalizing,
regulating, and taxing it. it sounds very reasonable to me from a
common sense perspective -- legalizing, regulating, and taxing it,
treating it like alcohol, has always made sense to me.
but actual legalization would bring the S.C. into play, as far as i
can see. this definitely looks like it's going to be an INTERESTING
experiment!
> So, how are they going to levy taxes on the sale of pot? Since they are
> going to consider it the same as alcohol will you be able to go into a
store
> and buy it?
good questions. have the proponents of the initiative said anything
about hw they plan to get these things accomplished? if i lived there
and was going to vote on the propostion, i'd wat to know as many
PRACTICAl details, as opposed to political rhetoric, as possible.
unless the supremes rule strongly in favor of states' rights as far as
medical cannabis goes, i'd be expecting alaska to be the next
battleground for MEDICAL use [cali having been the first one] --
legalization for recreational use is going to gve the feds a bigger
publicity hammer than would prob have been the case otherwise.
rose
|
