Judge Asks State To Document Pot Claim 

Judge Asks State To Document Pot Claim 
Posted by CN Staff on June 09, 2006 at 08:21:27 PT
By Matt Voltz, Associated Press Writer
Source: Associated Press
Juneau, Alaska -- A judge is asking the state of Alaska for its evidence that marijuana has become so dangerously potent in the last three decades that it warranted tightening one of the nation's most liberal possession laws. Judge Patricia Collins requested the documentation Thursday, three days after the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska asked the court to block a new state law recriminalizing marijuana.
The civil liberties group alleges the new law is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.Gov. Frank Murkowski pushed the law through the Legislature and signed it June 2. But in preparation for the expected court fight, Murkowski and the Legislature included in the bill a set of findings meant to prove that marijuana has increased in potency since the original Supreme Court decisionThe court's original ruling in 1975 favored privacy rights over criminal penalties for pot possession. Later court decisions set a legal limit of 4 ounces that an individual can keep in the home.In an initial hearing Thursday, Collins asked the state to submit a brief that contains the complete legislative record on the new law.Dean Guaneli, the state's chief assistant attorney general, said he planned to assemble today the documents the state submitted to the Legislature and a transcript of the legislative hearings on the bill.ACLU attorneys will respond with their own documentation that counters Murkowski's claims, said ACLU of Alaska executive director Michael Macleod-Ball.Collins has set the next hearing for July 5. Sometime after, she is expected to issue a final order on whether to grant a permanent injunction blocking the law.Whatever her decision, the case is expected to be appealed and ultimately decided by the Alaska Supreme Court.Under the new law, marijuana possession of 4 ounces or more is a felony. Possession of 1 to 4 ounces is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail; less than 1 ounce is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. Note: ACLU Suit: To justify new law, governor said marijuana has grown stronger. Newshawk: MayanSource: Associated Press (Wire)Author: Matt Voltz, Associated Press WriterPublished: Friday, June 9, 2006Copyright: 2006 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:ACLU Sues Alaska Over State's New MJ Law Files Lawsuit to Protect Privacy Rights Bill Becomes Law
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #7 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 13, 2006 at 05:21:31 PT
More Potent and More DANGEROUS
You can't overdose on pot because you would fall asleep before you could inhale enough to overdose. Here's a question for the ACLU to ask the state, "If the increased potency of marijuana makes it more dangerous, what is it more dangerous than?" Other than deep relaxation and a general feeling of euphoria, what are the dangers of this new and improved potent pot? Like I said before, there is drano, knives, inhalants, poisons, prescription drugs, guns, alcohol, fire hazards and you name it in every home, how is a bag of pot more dangerous than every day items?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by b4daylight on June 10, 2006 at 16:27:36 PT
Judge Patricia Collins requested the documentation
wow finally someone is just not listening, but thinking.Yea that is pretty bad to make those claims.Considering Netherland's High THC which the public uses every day produces no spike in Hospital stays, treatment centers, or users
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by unkat27 on June 10, 2006 at 06:33:53 PT
Good Move, Collins
But she had better be prepared to deal with BS prohibitionist propaganda and exaggeration. The vampires and vultures won't be able to provide any definitive "proof" because there is none, so this documentation will most likely be the typical, exaggerated fear-mongering, unsubstantiated BS.Consider for something much closer to the truth about this failing drug war. End Prohibition Now!
Problems of Illegal Cannabis Outweigh Legal Cannabis
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by charmed quark on June 10, 2006 at 05:25:50 PT
This is great
I'm so glad to hear that a court is actually willing to consider whether some of the war on cannabis propaganda is true or not.So much of this war rests on fundemental lies. The one I would like to see challenged is the law in many states that claims possessing over an ounce or so or growing any quantity is de facto distribution. You get caught growing a couple of plants in most states and they will convict you of "manufacturing for distribution" and try to impose penalities on the order of a decade. I doubt most citizens would want to put someone in jail for a decade if they were growing a couple of plants for personal use only. But they are told the grower was a "kingpin" growing for sales, making it OK to put him away for a good fraction fo his life.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by paulpeterson on June 09, 2006 at 13:06:51 PT
Saskatoon, baby
Remember that our brave Canadian rats (not too far East of the capital of Alaska, methinks) have already proven, since last November, that is, that the stronger a Marijuana chemical is, the more potent it is at producing "neurogenesis" or the production of new brain cells. No dead brain cells after 10 days of daily dosing of HU210, the potent cousin of HU211, a synthetic THC molecule. New brain cells produced. Cured rat anxiety & depression (no, I am not a rat psychiatrist, so don't ask me how they could prove that).Now a guy in Sweden has a "clandestine" drug that cured a rat of Parkinson's disease after 5 weeks. Wanna bet that is Marinol, the synthetic THC pill? The drug has no toxicity and has already been approved for use in unrelated conditions in humans. The guy at "" mentioned that the dose is "different" than normally used, meaning it is probably a high dose which would pack a whallop.And from other findings regarding "neurogenesis" it appears that caging animals stops the production of new brain cells and shrivels the brain.Now it is starting to look like it is "cruel and unusual" punishment to put merely marijuana users in small cages, capish? Unconstitutional to place people in brain shrinkage wraps just because they had found how marijuana produces new brain cells. Anybody mad yet? PAUL PETERSON
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 09, 2006 at 10:52:33 PT
Publicity on this suit should be an eye opener.
The damn illegalizers keep screwing up, not even realizing that they are hastening the day cannabis will be legal for adult use. If they had brains, they would tak them out an play with them.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on June 09, 2006 at 08:53:14 PT:
"Fools rush in.."
Oh boy, this is gonne be good...Are the prohibs that dumb? Are they truly that stupid? Can they be so arrogant and so blinded by hubris to fail to understand what has just happened?The main protection that drug prohibitionists have enjoyed throughout drug prohibition's entire existence has been the ability to avoid being called on their lies in a court of law, where penalties for perjuring one's self exist. They have been able to avoid for decades the necessity for actually proving they have a rational justification for drug prohibition by strenuously avoiding such an arena, and using the cachet of public office as a shield against such a move. Given that the entire foundation of drug prohibition is based upon lies, this is truly dangerous grounds for them, indeed. The prohibs must now provide information that will be scrutinized by a judge, who will have to accept counter-information from reform sources. Since there never was any established baseline regarding early cannabis research (we all know the bit about the business of the wildly varrying quality of cannabis seized in the 1970's, poor storage allowing oxidation to cause wildly divergent THC composition, etc. making a baseline impossible) to claim that cannabis is stronger than it was in the 1970's is to leave one's self open to ridicule.The prohibs will be forced to give their testimony under oath. They will have to prove they have factual information which, quite frankly, will not stand up under cross-examination by any lawyer worth his or her salt. There's an old saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make insane. To think that you could hope to walk into a courtroom with a pack of lies as constitutes drug prohibition and think you will prevail is symptomatic of that madness at work...
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment