cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Bill Finished Goes Back To House, Senate Marijuana Bill Finished Goes Back To House, Senate Posted by CN Staff on April 12, 2006 at 22:20:30 PT By Matt Volz, Associated Press Writer Source: Associated Press Juneau, Alaska -- A legislative conference committee on Wednesday denied one last attempt to remove tougher restrictions on marijuana possession from a drug bill before approving a final version of the measure. The bill is meant to curb the manufacture of methamphetamine and give the state the legal artillery to overturn Alaska Supreme Court decisions that have made the state's marijuana laws among the most lenient in the nation. The final bill now goes back to the House and Senate for ratification before heading to Gov. Frank Murkowski for his signature.The conference committee of six House and Senate members made only two significant changes to the bill: requiring a customer to sign a logbook before buying a medicine with an ephedrine base, such as Sudafed; and making it illegal to sell those ephedrine-based drugs to anybody under 16.Ephedrine-based drugs are a precursor to methamphetamine manufacture. The logbook requirement would mirror a provision in the federal Patriot Act.The Senate Finance Committee had rolled into the House methamphetamine bill Murkowski's priority marijuana measure that added harsher penalties for possession of the drug.The Republican members of the conference committee voted Wednesday against separating them into separate bills again. Sen. Con Bunde, R-Anchorage, said the overall goal was to reduce the number of impaired people in society."Whether they're high on meth or stoned on pot, it's the same to me," Bunde said.Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, attempted to remove from the bill a list of legislative findings that say the marijuana available today is much more potent than that of the 1960s and 1970s, and that it may be addictive.The findings are meant to be used in an attempt to overturn a 31-year-old Supreme Court decision that allows small amounts of marijuana in Alaska homes - an amount that was later set at 4 ounces.French said those findings could not be considered scientific proof, as they were contested by scientists in committee hearings.He failed to get the votes needed to strike the findings from the bill.French also tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to make legal small amounts of marijuana for personal use in a residence, saying it was a question of the right to privacy in the home.That amendment also failed, with Bunde saying the amount of a drug a person possesses should not matter - the drug is still illegal whether it's an ounce or a pound.The bill is House Bill 149. Source: Associated Press (Wire)Author: Matt Volz, Associated Press Writer Published: Wednesday, April 12, 2006Copyright: 2006 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Regulate Marijuana in Alaskahttp://www.regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/Alaskans Weigh Privacy in Marijuana Debatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21724.shtml 'Meth-ijuana' Bill To Change http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21710.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #19 posted by Sam Adams on April 13, 2006 at 13:57:33 PT Governor Frank Jerkovski Does this need to be censored? I hope not. This is what I'm saying in my mind every time this guy's name comes up. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 11:59:36 PT runderwo Legislators shouldn't be allowed to make findings of fact. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by runderwo on April 13, 2006 at 11:52:45 PT science "French said those findings could not be considered scientific proof, as they were contested by scientists in committee hearings. He failed to get the votes needed to strike the findings from the bill."Pretty much proof positive that this is about politics and not any sort of rational analysis of the matter. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by runderwo on April 13, 2006 at 11:51:26 PT impaired "Sen. Con Bunde, R-Anchorage, said the overall goal was to reduce the number of impaired people in society."Whether they're high on meth or stoned on pot, it's the same to me," Bunde said."---under the influence is not impairedpot is not methuse is not abuse [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 09:56:17 PT My new song Once there was a little man who had to go back and forth to get home. He laughed and he tried not to cry. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 09:54:35 PT FoM Things have changed.I feel like I've been away so long. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 09:52:33 PT whig I made my husband a CD of different songs for when he is in the truck. I'm listening to it now. I am listening to Bob Dylan singing Things Have Changed. What a great song. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 09:50:01 PT Faster than the speed of light I feel like I have no time.I forget who we are.I want to inspire you.I want to tell you what I'm thinking about.The music is dissonant today.Doors. Take it easy baby. Take It As It Comes.I'm listening to Pandora.com.I don't know what I will hear next.We're in the sixties again.It's Green-Eyed Lady. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 09:35:40 PT Just to prove a point.... Bom Shankar [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 09:33:54 PT whig You're right. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 09:28:53 PT FoM I am way more reserved here then in my own mind.See, that's exactly what I mean! You use shorthand sometimes, we all do. You can't come out and publicly say what you think about certain things, because you know that there are certain people who will attack you for saying them. Unfortunately you of all people on CNews have to be more careful because it's your site. The rest of us mostly have a degree more anonymity that lets us be a little more open.It's not so hard to understand that the racists use this same kind of coded language, just for a different purpose. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 09:17:40 PT whig When I say some in power I am being kind. What I feel isn't always what I type. I'd have to censor myself if I posted my true thoughts sometimes. Not really but I am way more reserved here then in my own mind. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 09:10:59 PT FoM It's not just "some in power" though. It's actually the whole purpose. They don't mind locking up "lower class" whites either, but the only "colored people" that are to be allowed to succeed are the "house negroes." [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 09:03:37 PT whig When they increased the penalty for Crack I thought well they will be able to lock up a lot of blacks and that is important to do. Does that make sense? I don't think it is right but I do believe some in power think that way. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 08:59:12 PT FoM The thing is, just because we had the Civil Rights movement and ended official discrimination, does not mean that the people who maintained the system of American apartheid for decades since the end of the Civil War suddenly became accepting of the equality of all people.They did not.What happened is that the racists went underground. They stopped talking about it publicly. Among themselves, privately, you will hear racial slurs quite often. I've heard them.They aren't a small minority. This is a substantial percentage of the American people we're talking about.Republican politicians are with them. They know this. They agree with one another. But the pols are too cagey to admit it even privately. Instead they use code words and phrases to identify themselves to one another.Just like many cannabists do among ourselves when we talk publicly, by the way. There's nothing wrong with speaking politically incorrect things in private codes, in itself.What is wrong is not that they maintain this kind of double-meaning language, but that their secret itself is support for domination, oppression, enslavement and control.Our secret, by contrast, is peace, love, equality and freedom. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 08:51:15 PT whig Thank you. I believe what the Republican Party believes isn't near what it actually is. I was an Idealist but over the years I have become a Realist. Time has a tendency to twist the ole mind. LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 08:32:20 PT FoM Let me try to explain the current Republican Party, as I see it. Now there are a lot of people who in the past were associated with Republicans on a lot of different points of common ground, from the perspective of reducing the size of the federal government, balancing the budget, and other talking points that were sufficient to build a broad-based coalition with people who might not otherwise support their agenda. At the core, however, and all that now remains of the base of the Republican Party, was one thing.Racism. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 07:47:49 PT Alaska I really was annoyed when I posted this article last night. I don't believe in hating anyone but I am getting to a point where I really dislike the Republican's agenda. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by dongenero on April 13, 2006 at 07:37:49 PT Senator Con Bunde- sober? In the above article Bunde says;"Whether they're high on meth or stoned on pot, it's the same to me," Bunde said.Sounds like black and white thinking to me....do you suppose Senator Bunde is an alcoholic??Hmmmm, well check this next little piece out....especially the last comment by Senator Bunde.Con Bunde, a state legislator for the rich white folks up on Hillside, doesn’t just ignore the severe social and economic problems in rural Alaska, he wants to tax these destitute communities. Bunde introduced legislation in the last session that would force more than 30,000 people in Alaska’s poorest communities (nearly all of whom are Alaska Native) to pay $426 each into the state’s school fund. To say that Mr. Bunde is racist is too kind a term for the man. Donald Olson, a Bering Straits Senator, tried helplessly in a committee hearing to lower the amount to $100, to which Bunde replied, “We can debate the amount endlessly, one of the objectives of the bill is to provide a balance of fairness. ... That’s 400 cups of coffee, is that too much to ask?” Olson invited the bill’s supporters to come out to rural Alaska, places like Newtok. “However impressed you are with your figures, I’ll impress you more with the realities,” he said. Ignorant of the severe problems of alcohol in Bush villages, Bunde quickly replied, “would I have to stay sober?” [ Post Comment ] Post Comment