# Alaska court legalizes personal use possession of marijuana **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2003, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349 "2003-07-05T05:13:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/41 "2003-07-11T21:57:33Z")
> [@](#): > > And I’m surprised that I could be sanctioned for making an argument that a judge disagrees with Not only do your arguments about the Constitution fly in the face of all precedent, they fly in the face of all logic. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/42 "2003-07-11T22:41:04Z")
**The Ryan** , the Supremacy Clause was inserted specifically for the purpose of making federal laws superior to state laws and, yes, to state constitutions. This was discussed at some length by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. I’m paraphrasing one of those gentlemen who expressed the problem as follows: If not for the Supremacy Clause, federal laws would not be laws at all, but treaties between the states, subject to being overturned at the state level at the whim of state legislatures. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/43 "2003-07-11T22:49:33Z")
Ah. Here we go. in [Federalist No. 33](http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?fed:12:./temp/~const_DBPY::), Hamilton had this to say: > [@](#): > > If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. Still have doubts? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/44 "2003-07-12T01:10:33Z")
> [@](#): > > This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding I am not a lawyer, but the wording in the supremacy clause seems quite easy for even a lay person to understand. **The Ryan,** I don’t see why you are having such a problem with this. In the above quote the term “The United States” means the Federal Government. It does NOT mean the collective state governments of the 50 states. The term “This Constitution” refers to the Constitution of the United States of America or, if you will, the Federal Constitution. The clause clearly states that Federal law is the law of the land and that all judges in every individual state are bound by these Federal Laws REGARDLESS of any STATE constitution or STATE laws that run contrary to Federal law. I could be wrong, but it seems clear enough to me. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/45 "2003-07-12T13:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*Well, you can a call citizens actually discussing what their Constition means rather than simply accepting what the PTB tell them “mental masturbation”, but I call it responsible citizenship. > \*\* It’s mental masturbation; it’s not responsible citizenship. To my mind, “responsible citizenship” means discussing actual issues and controversies, not trying to create one out of whole cloth. As for “accepting what the PTB tell them,” two points. _First,_ would you argue with a definition provided in Webster’s? Webster’s is merely an authority figure - a PTB. If you wish to claim that Webster’s is wrong and that what we call an apple is really an orange, you may enjoy yourself, but it won’t change the fact that an apple is an apple. _Second,_ you do realize what we call those who don’t accept the common interpretation of the Constitution on fundamental points, don’t you? We call them members of Posse Comitatus, the Michigan Militia, or the Christian Identity Movement. We accept what the “PTBs” tell us because it represents the consensus of what the Constitution means. Without that consensus, we don’t have a Constitution. Religions can split into schisms if they wish over varying interpretations of their holy scripture; a country cannot do the same over interpretation of their basic law. That way leads to civil war. Sua ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/46 "2003-07-12T15:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*It’s mental masturbation; it’s not responsible citizenship. To my mind, “responsible citizenship” means discussing actual issues and controversies, not trying to create one out of whole cloth. As for “accepting what the PTB tell them,” two points. _First,_ would you argue with a definition provided in Webster’s? Webster’s is merely an authority figure - a PTB. If you wish to claim that Webster’s is wrong and that what we call an apple is really an orange, you may enjoy yourself, but it won’t change the fact that an apple is an apple. > _Second,_ you do realize what we call those who don’t accept the common interpretation of the Constitution on fundamental points, don’t you? We call them members of Posse Comitatus, the Michigan Militia, or the Christian Identity Movement. > We accept what the “PTBs” tell us because it represents the consensus of what the Constitution means. Without that consensus, we don’t have a Constitution. Religions can split into schisms if they wish over varying interpretations of their holy scripture; a country cannot do the same over interpretation of their basic law. That way leads to civil war. > > Sua \*\* soif the supreme court issued a ruling that greatly hurt free speech you would be ok and supportive of that interpretation? since you pointed out some groups that have differing opinions on what the Constitution means. let me point out a few groupds who blindly accepted the goverment. there was tha nazis germany under hitler, communist russia, communist china, and so forth a population of people who blindly accept the goverment are nothing more then sheep waiting for the butcher. the price of freedom is vigelance. i wish i could remember who but one of the members here has “ **be heard not herd** ” in thier signiture. i think you would do good to think about that for awhile. i also you mentioned the possibility of cival war as a reason we should be sheep. well if enough believe the goverment is violating thier rights for cival war, and peacefull action will not change that, then maybe they have a point. > [@](#): > > _Benjamin Franklin_ > \*\* > They that can give up essential liberty > to obtain a little temporary safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety! > \*\* freedom is more important then even life. the American Revolutionary war was fought becouse the colonist believed they had rights the crown believed they did not have. so was the Revolutionary war unjust? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/47 "2003-07-12T18:27:43Z")
Well, gosh, **netscape** let’s think about that. If the Supreme Court decision violated that common, historical consensus of freedom of speech means, than no, I would not support it. If, OTOH, the decision fell within that consensus, I would accept it, even if I virulently disagreed with the decision. See the difference? I knew I would get a response like yours to my post. :rolleyes: BTW, the Revolutionary War was not unjust, but it was illegal. The FFs and their compatriots rejected the then-applicable law, and worked and fought to establish a new legal order. That’s fine. And they knew it and acknowledged it; they did not attempt to play semantic games and claim that, if you intepreted the third clause of the Magna Carta “properly,” you would realize that the British Empire never actually owned the American colonies. What they did not do is re-read the Magna Carta and say “everyone’s been interpreting the third clause incorrectly.” That is an absurdity. My point is that **The Ryan** is not playing the responsible citizen - he is playing “let’s reinterpret what has been settled.” He is not arguing that, under the proper interpretation of the Constitution, federal laws do not have supremacy over state laws. Indeed, he **acknowledged that they do:** > [@](#): > > _by The Ryan_ > I do not dispute that state constitutions are held to be subordinate to the federal constitution. What I dispute is that this supremacy is conferred by the supremacy clause. So, he agrees with the result, but thinks that, for the past 216 years everyone has misunderstood how we got to that result. I say that, if we were to weight 216 years of judges, lawyers, historians and scholars, interpreting the Supremacy Clause one way, versus **The Ryan** interpreting it another way, the great weight of favors the traditional interpretation. But, more to the point, even if **The Ryan** is right, and all of those judges, historians, etc., were wrong, **there would be no effect,** as even **The Ryan** admits - federal law would remain superior to state law. So what is the point? Sua ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/48 "2003-07-12T20:40:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Well, gosh, **netscape** let’s think about that. If the Supreme Court decision violated that common, historical consensus of freedom of speech means, than no, I would not support it. If, OTOH, the decision fell within that consensus, I would accept it, even if I virulently disagreed with the decision. See the difference? > I knew I would get a response like yours to my post. :rolleyes: > \*\* but would you speak out against itand maybe try to change it? [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* \*\*BTW, the Revolutionary War was not unjust, but it was illegal. The FFs and their compatriots rejected the then-applicable law, and worked and fought to establish a new legal order. That’s fine. And they knew it and acknowledged it; they did not attempt to play semantic games and claim that, if you intepreted the third clause of the Magna Carta “properly,” you would realize that the British Empire never actually owned the American colonies. What they did not do is re-read the Magna Carta and say “everyone’s been interpreting the third clause incorrectly.” That is an absurdity. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* that was not my point. you said something along the lines of differening opinions on rights can lead to cival war. i pointed out that if enough people consider their rights violated by the goverment, if peacefull means will not work then, then fighting a war for them is justifable. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*But, more to the point, even if **The Ryan** is right, and all of those judges, historians, etc., were wrong, **there would be no effect,** as even **The Ryan** admits - federal law would remain superior to state law. > So what is the point? > > Sua \*\* one person agiast 216 of people will not change much i admit, but if he can convince enough people then something will change\*. that is the point. \*to be honest i kind of skimmed through this thread. so if his interpretation has the sam effect it is kind of pointless in this. however having the correct interpritation might change other things. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/49 "2003-07-12T22:54:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > If not for the Supremacy Clause, federal laws would not be laws at all, but treaties between the states, subject to being overturned at the state level at the whim of state legislatures. First of all, there is no need for the supremacy clause, specifically. to grant supremacy. Secondly, this isn’t an all or nothing situation: for instance, if one interprets the constitution as granting the federal government supremacy only in its enumerated powers (Article I, Section VIII), and allowing it to pass laws in other areas which the states are free to ignore, that would preserve the United States as more than a collection of states with no obligation to each other. SuaSpnte [qoute]To my mind, “responsible citizenship” means discussing actual issues and controversies, not trying to create one out of whole cloth. [/quote] And you get to decide what is a “real” issue? > [@](#): > > First, would you argue with a definition provided in Webster’s? Webster’s is merely an authority figure - a PTB. If I thought it was wrong, yes I would. You wouldn’t? If Webster’s dictionary defined an apple as an “orange citrus fruit covered with a rough peel whose interior is separated into aproxiately a dozen sections”, you’d say “okay, if that’s what Webster’s says, that what it mans”? > [@](#): > > Second, you do realize what we call those who don’t accept the common interpretation of the Constitution on fundamental points, don’t you? We call them members of Posse Comitatus, the Michigan Militia, or the Christian Identity Movement. As netscape 6 showed, that argument can be turned around to imply that you’re a Nazi. > [@](#): > > We accept what the “PTBs” tell us because it represents the consensus of what the Constitution means. That’s simply a restatement of terms “We accept what the PTB tell us because that’s what the PTB have decided”. > [@](#): > > Religions can split into schisms if they wish over varying interpretations of their holy scripture; a country cannot do the same over interpretation of their basic law. That way leads to civil war. Are you seriously saying that it is impossible to have peacable disagreements about basic constitutional principles, and anyone that challenges the current consensus is inciting rebellion? > [@](#): > > Well, gosh, netscape let’s think about that. If the Supreme Court decision violated that common, historical consensus of freedom of speech means, than no, I would not support it. If, OTOH, the decision fell within that consensus, I would accept it, even if I virulently disagreed with the decision. See the difference? So if enough time passed, and enough people came around to agreeing that this decision was right, you’d come around as well? > [@](#): > > Indeed, he acknowledged that they [federal laws] do [have supremacy over state laws] More precisely, I acknowledged that they have been **held** to have supremacy. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/50 "2003-07-13T06:18:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **As netscape 6 showed, that argument can be turned around to imply that you’re a Nazi.** And [Godwin’s Law](http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) rears it’s ugly head and dooms my long since hopelessly hijacked thread. Say good night, **The Ryan**. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/51 "2003-07-13T18:26:08Z")
It seemed to me Godwin’s law was already invoked by SuaSponte’s comparison of me to right wing fanatics; I was simply pointing that out. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/52 "2003-08-30T17:16:54Z")
News update: [Alaska appellate court has affirmed the right of Alaskans to possess a small amount of marijuana in their homes.](http://www.adn.com/front/story/3799677p-3825431c.html) > [@](#): > > **"Alaska citizens have a right to possess less than four ounces of marijuana in their home for personal use," Appeals Judge David Stewart said. State prosecutors could retry Noy for possession of a greater quantity, Stewart said.** Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski has vowed to seek a State Supreme Court review of the case. But since the case was based on a 1975 State Supreme Court case (Raven v. State of Alaska), the court is usually reluctant to reverse itself. Marijuana cannot be recriminalized by legislation; any efforts to criminalize small amounts of pot would have to be done by amending the state constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/53 "2003-08-30T17:47:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\*News update: > > [Alaska appellate court has affirmed the right of Alaskans to possess a small amount of marijuana in their homes.](http://www.adn.com/front/story/3799677p-3825431c.html) Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski has vowed to seek a State Supreme Court review of the case. But since the case was based on a 1975 State Supreme Court case (Raven v. State of Alaska), the court is usually reluctant to reverse itself. Marijuana cannot be recriminalized by legislation; any efforts to criminalize small amounts of pot would have to be done by amending the state constitution. \*\* “Frank The Bank”, as we refer to him here, or more recently, “Murtaxski”, may try to hang his hat on the issue, since he is tremendously unpopular with nearly all political parties in the state, including the Pubbies. He announced that the decision was “regrettable”, whatever that polspeak means. Unfortunately, many in this politically backward state will jump on the issue as more of that durn liberal conspiracy. On the side of reason is the Alaska State Constitution, which is a marvelous document that was created by freethinkers long before oil greed hit the place. Since the oilfield discoveries, Alaska has turned into a haven for freeloaders and corporate/Republican greed. Our last governor (a Democrat) was branded a liberal, which is laughable, given his dependence on oil money. Thankfully, the Alaska Supreme Court can still think for itself, and still upholds the law. ---
**Author:** ![yola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/48db29/32.png) [@yola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yola)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/54 "2003-08-30T22:46:45Z")
[http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~1601247,00.html](http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~1601247,00.html) Front page of the Frbks News-Miner today. Yeah! I’m legal again! ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/55 "2003-09-03T21:31:57Z")
No, you’re not. As was noted on this thread before it was derailed by **The Ryan** ’s aberrant reading of the U.S. Constitution, Alaska can say whatever it wishes about the legalization of drugs; under U.S. law, marijuana, even in small amounts, is illegal no matter where it is stored. This ruling has no effect on that whatsoever. So, while Alaska police may not arrest you for possession of small amount of pot, you can still be arrested by federal agents. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/56 "2003-09-04T04:54:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hank Fescue \* > \*\*I was under the impression that Alaska has had an on again off again policy on pot. 1974 referendum IIRC. Could be wrong. \*\* When I was a kid, in the 70s, it was legal to possess and/or grow up to one pound IIRC for one’s own personal consumption. I think that it was in the late 80s when they made it a misdemeanor, and then shortly after that, to be a criminal act. But since I’d LONG grown out of even the recreational use in which I’d indulged as a “wild” teen by the time I was 20, (when it was still LEGAL for us). I don’t truly remember what “level” of crime it is now. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I’ve heard that the Matanuska Thunderf\*\*k, which was in the 1970s considered to be the very WORST kind of ragweed is now, if not number one, among the top 5 regarding THC content. Given this, I’d be surprised if our state legislature decided to “re” decriminalize" marijauana. Particularly since we’re supposedgly a republican state. Aren’t republicans supposed to be very very conservative? (hint, Politics NOT my strong suit:)). ---
**Author:** ![Thranduil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/57b2e6/32.png) [@Thranduil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thranduil)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/57 "2003-09-04T14:18:48Z")
I am packing my bags and moving to Alaska! wooohooooo ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/58 "2003-09-04T17:35:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cliffy \* > \*\*No, you’re not. As was noted on this thread before it was derailed by **The Ryan** ’s aberrant reading of the U.S. Constitution, Alaska can say whatever it wishes about the legalization of drugs; under U.S. law, marijuana, even in small amounts, is illegal no matter where it is stored. This ruling has no effect on that whatsoever. So, while Alaska police may not arrest you for possession of small amount of pot, you can still be arrested by federal agents. > > –Cliffy \*\* But it has a huge practical effect, **Cliffy.** Federal agents don’t make even a tiny percentage of run-of-the-mill possession arrests; that’s the function of state and local police. State and local police do not enforce federal laws. Thus, in Alaska, even though possession of pot in your home remains a federal crime, there is effectively no chance of arrest. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349/59 "2003-09-05T01:57:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Thranduil \* > \*\*I am packing my bags and moving to Alaska! > > wooohooooo \*\* Before you put on your mukluks, remember that this interpretation only applies to marijuana possession _in the privacy of your own home_. It is still illegal to possess marijuana in public, so if you get stopped by the cops and they find a joint in your pocket or glove box, you will still be busted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-court-legalizes-personal-use-possession-of-marijuana/186349.md?page=2)