Lawmakers Stand Firm Against Marijuana

Lawmakers Stand Firm Against Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on April 08, 2005 at 08:00:42 PT
By Sean Cockerham, Anchorage Daily News
Source: Anchorage Daily News 
Juneau, Alaska -- Last fall 44 percent of Alaska voters said they wanted all amounts of pot to be legal for adults to use, grow, sell or give away. They are not likely to find a single member of the Legislature who agrees.That's a key fact, since the Legislature is now considering Gov. Frank Murkowski's push to again make it illegal for adults to use modest amounts of marijuana in their own homes.
"I'd say I've got my work cut out for me to stop this bill," said Bill Parker, a former Anchorage legislator who, on behalf of Alaskans for Marijuana Regulation and Control, is opposing the governor's effort.The governor's bill cleared the Senate Health, Education and Social Services Committee last week with little opposition. The House Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on it this morning.Parker argued that, while the majority of Alaskans don't support full-blown legalization, the fact that 44 percent do indicates Murkowski is out of touch. And, he said, legislators fall back on conventional political wisdom that the safest course is to declare themselves against all drugs."The average politician's conclusion is that if you (even) talk about drugs, then people will think that you are for drugs," Parker said. Snipped:Complete Article: MayanSource: Anchorage Daily News (AK)Author: Sean Cockerham, Anchorage Daily NewsPublished: April 8, 2005Copyright: 2005 The Anchorage Daily News Contact: letters Website: Related Articles & Web Site:Regulate Marijuana in Alaska Bill Would Overwhelm Police Doesn't Mean MJ Should Be Illegal Less Harmful Than Alcohol or Tobacco
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #17 posted by Hope on April 30, 2005 at 12:02:57 PT
The War on Drugs
is insane and immoral. It spews filth that stinks to high heaven.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by Hope on April 30, 2005 at 12:01:08 PT
To those of us who listened to the hearings
and were appreciative of the head of the public defenders office testifying against the bill but wondered if she would keep her job. She's losing her job because of her honesty. pertaining to her situation:ON THE MOVE ... Word is Gov. Frank Murkowski has officially notified Barbara Brink, head of the Alaska Public Defender agency, that he won't be reappointing her when her term is up later this year. Earmites permanently on probation say she is being punished for suggesting to legislators at a recent hearing that they consider the budget implications of re-criminalizing small amounts of marijuana. Apparently the bill to do so assumes that police, prosecutors and public defenders can just take on the extra load with no extra bodies.Brink has been with the agency for 23 years, having worked her way up from staff attorney.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by FoM on April 09, 2005 at 14:29:23 PT
I keep thinking of what they were saying and how careful they spoke. Words can twist meanings just because they can. The way they said that percentages were higher as far as THC content but have they run tests on volunteers to see how their perception was after smoking different grades of cannabis? No they don't want to do that because they know that it would disprove so many things. Why not do a fair test of agility, memory and other important issues and let the answer be a legitimate guide to drug laws concerning cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Hope on April 09, 2005 at 13:24:14 PT
anti-motivational syndrome
In fact, as someone who has a natural tendency to be lethargic, I never wanted to waste a minute of finally feeling good on not getting something positive done.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by Hope on April 09, 2005 at 13:21:02 PT
I think you're right, FoM
The expression, "You're ruining my high." "Don't bring me down.", I think are all based on that phenomenon. The marijuana high is a delicate thing that can definitely be blunted by an emergency or even a snack. Yeah...even with the good stuff. It's more like a door opening...and when things get serious...the door closes.In fact, anyone with any experience in marijuana use knows that if something happens like what you speak of in your comment...the high or euphoria is over and seriousness is the name of the new game. That ability of a snack to blunt the pleasant effects of marijuana, I suspect is why I was always able to maintain a leaner figure when I was smoking. That and the fact that it always had the opposite effect of anti-motivational syndrome on me.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by FoM on April 09, 2005 at 10:56:56 PT
One More Thought On The Hearing
In the argument they say to know the full effects of smoking pot it takes a few minutes but alcohol you can tell because of the proof. That's generalizing but the point I would like to try to make is imagine this.A person decides to stay in his home and watch football and drink and drink all night. He feels safe because he isn't going anywhere and if he gets really drunk he can just go to bed. Then the phone rings and it's an emergency. A family member has been in an accident and they tell you come to the hospital.How will the person sober up fast so he can drive to the hospital?Say a person decides to do the same thing but only is going to smoke pot. A person that gets a little to high from pot can quick take a minute and eat some food and it helps bring a person down doesn't it.If I'm right on this is sure makes pot safer then alcohol which is legal to have in Alaskan's homes.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on April 09, 2005 at 09:24:32 PT
About The Hearing
I hope others have the time to listen to the hearing. I've noticed that the experts seem to always be in a rush and don't have much time so they don't have to answer questions in detail like they should. What would be more important then answering questions for Alaskans since it will be their future in jeopardy if they change the law? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by runderwo on April 08, 2005 at 23:45:05 PT
potency etc
New Scientist had an article recently that mostly debunked the mental illness scare. There were methodology flaws in all of the referenced studies, and one of the researchers (I think from the study that was done in the UK) came out and said that the media had completely overblown any claim his research might have attempted to make. It is nothing but hysteria. At the core is a small nugget of knowledge that says individuals prone to schizophrenia should not use cannabis recreationally.The potency issue is an obvious red herring which takes about 2 seconds to explain to a non-smoker. More potent = use less to get same effects.It's hard to see how that would be a bad thing. I guess some people 'overdose' with strong weed when they've never had it before, but I'm sure that's true of THC extract too. I guess the idea here is that use is encouraged by higher potency because it's easier to get higher. Given the availability of hashish for centuries, I don't see why products with high levels of THC is suddenly some kind of epidemic.Also, I believe the potency numbers are based on cannabis that was saved from the 60's and then tested for potency in the 80's when the methodology was available. THC in storage degrades into CBN which is comparatively useless. So why would it be surprising that fresh product is stronger?All in all, more weak arguments that serve as not much more than talking points for the prohibs to keep pushing their vacuous associations on the listener.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Taylor121 on April 08, 2005 at 22:04:12 PT
The "experts" made me want to hurl over and vomit. Constant talk about correlations, no talk about causation. Causation is what generally matters. You can *insert other factor here* *insert other factor here* that could be the actual cause of the correlations, having little to nothing to do with marijuana itself. They are driving the potency bandwagon down the road like I've never heard before. This is the biggest witchhunt I have ever heard since I started following this movement.I appreciate the passionate testimony of the last speaker that was a citizen, but I wish he would have stayed away from hemp and focused on marijuana as a pychoactive chemical. We need to focus on debunking these potency claims very hard, and we need to attack the methodology of all the studies showing mental illness. Attack all the methodology of every single study that that man refers to. Give the committee debunks of each study that the govt is relying on, their pseudo scientific ventures. It has to be stopped. Did you hear how long they shouted propoganda to that committee? Seriously it is making me sick.We need other pot consumers to stand up. Relative to other drugs, marijuana is the least harmful. What happened to freedom? What happened to not just freedom of speech, what happened to freedom of consciounsess. Why do I have to answer questions for the government about my private life so they can "help" me? What happened to the founder's vision?He was very right about one thing. The government and the way they conduct cannabis research has to meet certain guidelines, and these guidelines require the studies to show some type of harm. They can't get causation, so they shine a 500 watt bulb onto a tiny area and try to find small correlations, then they blow them up 1000x the normal size. It is out of hand, and it is getting old. I hope Alaska does the right thing. I may be entering out patient treatment soon as a requirement for the state of Texas probation conditions because of my past usage of marijuana. I am tired of having to conform to a state agenda with the either/or scenario of conforming or going to jail. Stand up.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on April 08, 2005 at 21:01:42 PT
My Thoughts On The Hearing
I listened to the whole hearing. So many thoughts are going thru my mind but this one point I'd like to make. They want to be able to raid people's homes and the 4 ounce amount would mean if they made a mistake and a person only had 4 ounces or less they could be sued. They don't like it and that's why all this hoopla is going on I believe.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Hope on April 08, 2005 at 20:52:46 PT
Well…That was educational, at least the part about the smaller the leaf the higher the thc, from the guy who grows for the government in Mississippi.Mean Manic Murry back again...slightly (ever so slightly) humbled and actually saying at one point, "No one knows for sure..." about the titration theory. Well, he doesn't, that's for sure. Lots of "may"..."may"..."may". He slavers on and on about pure medicines that could be developed from cannabinoids. Dr. Murry’s testimony is a fine of example of the old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull----,"And there were at least three, maybe four more government “experts”…not much from our side but a promise from the chairwoman to let the public…as opposed to “government experts” (like the ones working on the nuclear waste project in Nevada expressing their willingness to “make up more stuff”), continue to testify Monday morning…since they didn’t have time for them because the “government experts” took up all the time. Meaning that they will all have to travel back again to the capital and miss more work to testify…meaning that at least some of them probably can’t.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on April 08, 2005 at 18:06:25 PT
Today's Alaska Hearing On Line Now
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by stoner spirit on April 08, 2005 at 16:44:33 PT:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaahahahaha! Nice! Hope the good herb gets legalized everywhere else.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on April 08, 2005 at 15:12:06 PT
Here we go
Another group of old men "standing firm" again. Standing firm against cannabis because they can't "stand firm" in the bedroom anymore.What was the name of that Phil Ochs song again, The American Manly-Man? Pathetic.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by stoner spirit on April 08, 2005 at 14:26:08 PT:
Politicians decide for adults
We are not children! I don't live in Alasca, but I know that its wrong for the government telling us what's good for us, and to decide what we can and can't do in our homes. Our voices will fall upon def ears, so why don't we all do civil disobedience? Yes, we might get arested, but somehow we have to get our point across to these prohibitionists in high places one way or another.
Good Gods!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by dongenero on April 08, 2005 at 08:46:43 PT
democracy vs constitutional republic
I've read a comment that I think is appropriate to this issue.
I probably read it here in fact but don't recall who said it, otherwise I would give appropriate credit.Our country is not really a democracy but a constitutional republic. A demoracy is based on majority rule, and supports the majority over the minority.
A constitutional republic on the other hand protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.While the 44 percent who desire legalization in Alaska are a minority, their rights to cannabis should be protected from the tyranny of the majority so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by mayan on April 08, 2005 at 08:14:23 PT
In 1990 Alaska voters passed an initiative to criminalize the possession of any amount of marijuana. The governor is trying defend that initiative in the courts, Rokeberg said.If the last reform initiative had passed and some Alaskan legislators wanted to overturn it would Murkowski try to defend it? Give me a break.Murkowski's stance isn't about defending any initiative, it's about trampling the Alaska State Constitution!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment