My letter to Rep. Berkowitz re recriminalizing marijuana

[Blue_In_AK]

Dear Rep. Berkowitz:

I'm writing to ask you, as my representative, to oppose the inclusion of marijuana in the drug bill that has been forwarded to you by the Senate. I don't think anyone in the entire state opposes shutting down the meth labs, but by including marijuana in this bill, the Senate means to criminalize probably at least a third of the residents of Alaska, probably more. I moved here in 1975, the year of the landmark Ravin decision. I have always been proud to live in a state with such high regard for its citizens' privacy. Over the years I've watched as time and time again certain sectors of the population have tried to recriminalize the herb, only to see their efforts shot down by the Appeals and Supreme Court, as it should have been. This matter is settled law, and should be dropped.

You and I both know that many productive citizens of this state smoke marijuana - including many on the Bar - with no adverse effects, and, of course, marijuana smokers don't cause nearly the problems that alcohol drinkers do. This is just a political ploy by the Senate Republicans and the governor so that they appear to be "doing something" about the drug problem.

As for the argument that marijuana is stronger now than in 1975, I have no way of knowing whether or not this is true. However, any pot smoker will tell you that when they get the desired effect, they stop smoking. Overdoses just don't happen. There's just no reason why the peaceful pot smokers, sitting around their house watching TV and munching on corn chips, should, with a stroke of an unpopular governor's pen, be turned into criminals.

Thanks for listening. And good luck on your bid for Governor. I am so pleased to see you and Eric Croft, both strong candidates, running.

[Ken Burch]

1. Good letter, but Berkowitz and Croft aren't going to cast pro-pot votes

while they're running for governor.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Maybe, maybe not...

From what I saw on Channel 2 last night, none of the reps were too happy about the senate adding the marijuana provision into THEIR meth bill. I also saw Lyda Green saying something really bizarre. She said she really didn't have a problem with people smoking pot in their homes if that's what they wanted to do, but she wanted it illegal because it was JUST TOO TEMPTING for people to sell it when it's worth its weight in gold. It's all about the money to these people -- all this rhetoric about it being stronger and more dangerous, etc. etc., and they're trying to "protect" us is just a smokescreen. What they're really pissed off about is that they can't tax it.

Well, we've been down this road before.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. More...

http://www.ktuu.com/cms/anmviewer.asp?a=3426&z=1

From Channel 2

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - by Bill McAllister
Juneau, Alaska - The House of Representatives today rejected changes the Senate made in a bill targeting methamphetamine. In a vote that split Republicans, the House decided to take the drug legislation to a conference committee with the Senate.

Whether they voted for it or not, members of the House today described anti-drug legislation passed by the Senate last week as flawed.

“I think it’s weak on methamphetamines, I think it’s weird on marijuana and I think it’s wrong on public process,” said Rep. Ethan Berkowitz, D-Anchorage.

The bill began as a measure by Rep. Jay Ramras to require retailers to keep logbooks on sales of precursor drugs that could be used to cook methamphetamine. The Senate dropped the logbooks, required hundreds of medications to be kept behind the counter and added an entire new section recriminalizing marijuana.

<SNIP>

Democrats said the marijuana section appears to go against a 30-year-old Supreme Court ruling on privacy known as the Ravin case.

“We need to have some hearings on this and to have some evidence, so that we can vote intelligently,” said Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage.

<SNIP>

The House voted 23-15 to reject the bill as amended by the Senate. A conference committee will determine whether the legislation goes to pot.