By Yereth Rosen
ANCHORAGE (Reuters) - Voters in Alaska will decide on Tuesday whether to make their state the first in the country to legalize the sale, possession or use of marijuana by adults.

Alaska already allows legal possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults, the most liberal policy among the 50 U.S. states, thanks to a 1975 state Supreme Court ruling.

"Our territory and now state has traditionally been the home of people who prize their individuality and who have chosen to settle or to continue living here in order to achieve a measure of control over their own lifestyles which is now virtually unattainable in many of our sister states," the oft-quoted ruling said.

Supporters say further decriminalizing pot would allow local governments and the state to regulate and tax it and free up police to pursue serious crimes.

"This is a very broad initiative that says, instead of the prohibition model, let's try the regulation model," said David Finkelstein, a former state Democratic lawmaker helping to organize the initiative campaign for Tuesday's election.

Opponents of the measure argue full legalization would be a step backward for Alaska, a state of about 650,000 people, which has an extremely high rate of substance abuse, including the use of marijuana by youths.

Tuesday's initiative will be the third in six years asking Alaska voters about marijuana policy. In 1998, voters approved a ballot measure legalizing medical marijuana, but two years later they rejected one that would have legalized the drug and mandated financial restitution for people convicted in the past of marijuana offenses.

Alaska's initiative is one of three marijuana questions on ballots across the country. In Oregon, voters are being asked to expand allowable medical marijuana use, and voters in Montana will decide whether to become the 10th state to legalize its medical use.

Pro-initiative groups said no opinion polls had been taken on the measure. But if the initiative passes, Alaska's Legislature will be responsible for defining how to regulate marijuana, in the same way the state decides on alcohol restrictions. After the 1975 ruling, the Legislature defined a "small amount" of marijuana as 4 ounces (114 grams).

With financial backing from the Marijuana Policy Project, a group funded partly by billionaire philanthropist George Soros, the initiative group has used television advertisements and mailings to emphasize Alaskans' love for personal freedoms.

Initiative opponents fume at the idea marijuana use has anything to do with Alaskan individuality, although they admit the argument is powerful.

"In Alaska, fiction has always won out over fact," said Matt Fagnani, president of an Anchorage drug-testing company and chairman of a group called Alaskans Against the Legalization of Marijuana and Hemp.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

Well, I'm in favour of legalization myself. Having seen plenty of people stoned and plenty of people drunk, I know which group of people I'd rather meet on a Saturday night.

Plus the number one argument levelled at cannabis is that it 'leads on to harder drugs'. Well, the main avenue for that to happen would be having to go to a drug dealer to get your cannabis because it's illegal. It's in his interests to say 'well, you like this, so how about you try this?'.

If one could buy Cannabis in a high-street store the criminal element is completely removed from that purchase. When you can enjoy cannabis completely legally, why would you venture to a drug dealer at all and risk your career etc?

Sure, there will always be some who go on to further drugs, but I would argue that they would have done so regardless of any legalization and therefore shouldn't affect our judgements.

The government gets the chance to tax it and make some money, and can also impose standards on the industry so that people know what they're smoking. I just can't see a problem with it - it's not a 'slippery slope' or anything in my opinion, just a long overdue reclassifcation based upon a rational assesment of the risks to our health rather than tabloid hysteria.


Clarifying edit: When I said 'I know which group I'd rather see' I was referring to it being the lesser of two evils and in no way condoning its use. Drugs are bad, mmmkay.

[ 11-01-2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

FOUR OUNCES is a small amount??? A whole Quarter Pound??????? And, you can have that on you and not go to jail??? Gawdongit let's pack up the truck and move!!!!!

Alaska ? I thought penguins didn't smoke ?

Unless they have a Sea World there it's unlikely that they see many penguins in Alaska. They tend to live at least 8,000 miles away - in Antartica.

;)

Unless they have a Sea World there it's unlikely that they see many penguins in Alaska. They tend to live at least 8,000 miles away - in Antartica.

;) </font>[/QUOTE]Ooops, missed a species in Galapagos .... and one near Califorinia .... oh and a few that live above the Arctic Circle ... Alaska even. ;)

Ooops, missed a species in Galapagos .... and one near Califorinia .... oh and a few that live above the Arctic Circle ... Alaska even.</font>[/QUOTE]Will you people stop trying to best each other in the Know It All contest?

So, in other news, a quarter pound of bud is a small amount? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

I take back everything bad I ever said/thought about Alaska...

*edit* I can't type :rolleyes:

[ 11-01-2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: aleph_null1 ]

Why? Did you not notice the smilies in both posts. I've known johnny for some time now. I don't think he'll object to my nitpicking.

BTW Night Stalker. Whilst I bow to your superior knowledge of all things penguiny you will note that I covered myself.

"it's unlikely that they see many penguins"

"they tend to live ......."

Good for Alaska. I suppose it's not a coincidence that they're geographical neighbours to British Columbia, right? ;)

LOL at TL and aleph_null; I had the same reaction - last time I looked, 4 ounces of ganja was more than simple possession.

It's about time it got legalized. Canada just had a court decision handed down (not sure if it was a case or a judicial reference); it is legal (e.g. not an invasion of privacy or a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) for the police to use infrared sensors as they fly over the city in helicoptors to try and spot grow-ops. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere else? Personally, I'd like to see them make more progress against the home labs that mix Crystal Meth and Ecstasy - those are more dangerous (and more addictive) than good ole weed.

I think 4oz is just a bit on the small-side, when considering the yield of a small personal outdoor garden, rather than thinking along the lines of buying a large sack from a dealer. I consider 8oz more fair from a outdoor gardener's perspective. A smaller amount is better concievable in an indoor hydroponic set-up designed for near-continuous harvest...not that I know anything about it, just guessing. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]

[ 11-02-2004, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]