The W
Views: 101454430
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.14 2026
The W - Current Events & Politics - Huge Victory for Freedom
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(1854 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (7 total)
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3890 days
Last activity: 2956 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
An Alaska court has deemed the ban on drugs unconstitutional. This will now surely go to the Alaska supreme court, and will at least get the country talking about this issue again.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030829_2090.html
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 40 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
    Originally posted by Michrome
    An Alaska court has deemed the ban on drugs unconstitutional. This will now surely go to the Alaska supreme court, and will at least get the country talking about this issue again.

    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030829_2090.html
You are WILDLY overstating things here. "Marijuana" does not equate to "drugs," and the ruling isn't even about marijuana - it's about privacy in the home. The appellate court also left in place a four ounce limit. Another AP story (news-miner.com)

There may also be a "if it didn't happen in the lower 48, it didn't really happen" mentality at work here.

Hey, but more power to 'em - send ALL the potheads to Alaska, I say! :)

(edited by CRZ on 1.9.03 0133)

CRZ
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3890 days
Last activity: 2956 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    You are WILDLY overstating things here. "Marijuana" does not equate to "drugs," and the ruling isn't even about marijuana - it's about privacy in the home.


Well yes, exactly, the ruling is about privacy in the home. Privacy in the home is the same with marijuana as it is with, say, Cocaine. A ruling in favor of marijuana legalization on the basis of privacy in the home is just asking for the entire drug war to be put on constitutional trial.

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 40 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65

    Well yes, exactly, the ruling is about privacy in the home. Privacy in the home is the same with marijuana as it is with, say, Cocaine.
Is it?

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~1601247,00.html
Friday's decision relied primarily on a controversial 1975 Alaska Supreme Court opinion rendered in Ravin v. State. Written by the late Fairbanks law icon Jay Rabinowitz, the opinion declared that adults can possess marijuana for personal use in their home because the state's interest in prohibiting them from doing so is not great enough to violate a citizen's right to privacy. (emphasis mine)

That appears to draw a pretty clear line. Certainly it would stand to reason that the state's interest in prohibiting, say, cocaine use in the home IS great enough to violate a citizen's right to privacy. Or are you now going to argue that cocaine and marijuana are on the same level?

    A ruling in favor of marijuana legalization on the basis of privacy in the home is just asking for the entire drug war to be put on constitutional trial.
Ah, but this isn't even that, is it - yeah, it's decriminilization of possession of less than four ounces (and I might add that even THAT is still illegal under *Federal* law) but one has to make a real wide leap to call that marijuana legalisation. The idea that making even MORE of a stretch in some kind of "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" tactic is suddenly gonna fly with the courts...well, I think that's way too broad, unreasonable and just as unfathomable a concept as the characterization you make in the thread title.



CRZ
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3890 days
Last activity: 2956 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    That appears to draw a pretty clear line. Certainly it would stand to reason that the state's interest in prohibiting, say, cocaine use in the home IS great enough to violate a citizen's right to privacy. Or are you now going to argue that cocaine and marijuana are on the same level?


No, nobody argues that, but the concept of privacy in the home remains the same.


    The idea that making even MORE of a stretch in some kind of "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" tactic is suddenly gonna fly with the courts...well, I think that's way too broad, unreasonable and just as unfathomable a concept as the characterization you make in the thread title.


You're right that the odds are that legalization won't be happening any time soon, but if this debate over freedom and privacy can get out into the open because of this case, I think the better argument is the one against legalization, even at the most basic level: An ammendment to the constitution was made to fight the war on alcohol, no such ammendment has been made to fight the war on drugs. Right now, anyone who brings up drug legalization in the public square will pretty much lose 20 percentage points in the polls automatically, maybe this is what's needed to get debate about this going again, without the opposing side just rolling eyes or scoffing at "crazy" libertarians.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4114 days
Last activity: 4113 days
#6 Posted on
(deleted by CRZ on 1.9.03 1818)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 1124 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
There is certianly, however, quite a jump from legalization of posession of four ounces in the home, and the actual legalization of acquiring said amount for consumption. Until the purchase of said drug has been legalized at the prescribed amounts, then I'd say nothing truly has changed.



"Each time I've met Huffington, I wondered if she was not somehow the long-lost daughter of Madame Nicolai Ceaucescu, or a genetic cross between Martha Stewart and Count Dracula. Had this Greek-born harpy lived in medieval times, she would have been sewn up in a bag with a rooster and two snakes and thrown into the nearest river."
-- Eric Margolis, Toronto Star
Pages: 1Thread ahead: CA GCOTD: BEYER
Next thread: Bodybuilders' cocks
Previous thread: Ten Commandments
(1854 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a nice site which spells out the problems and worries nice and clearly, and which doesn't play silly politics.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Huge Victory for FreedomRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.211 seconds.