Pubdate: Fri, 27 Oct 2000
Date: 10/27/2000
Source: Anchorage Daily News (AK)
Author: H. Thompson Prentzel III
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1555/a03.html

The articles "Alaska's top crop" (Oct. 15) and "Details cloud debates
for, against Prop. 5" (Oct. 16) failed to mention an important aspect
pertaining to our current debate over the legalization status of
marijuana in Alaska.

ADN reporters S.J. Komarnitsky and Liz Ruskin both attempted to
delineate a chronology of events regarding the convoluted history of
marijuana legalization in Alaska. Unfortunately, and in my opinion,
irresponsibly, neither reported the fact that the 1990
recriminalization law was specifically deemed unconstitutional in a
Superior Court in 1993 (State vs. McNeil).

McNeil's possession conviction was reversed because the 1990
initiative was "inadequate to overrule" the 1975 Alaska Supreme Court
decision in Ravin vs. State. Our Supreme Court has not reversed Ravin,
and the basis of their decision, the privacy clause of Alaska's
constitution, has never been amended or deleted.

In addition to reminding readers that state prosecutors accepted the
court's opinion (while never ceasing enforcement of the
unconstitutional prohibition), the reporters should have asked
authorities how they justify an estimated enforcement expense of $6
million last year alone in light of the McNeil case.

While reporters apparently don't think our courts have any bearing,
readers should wonder why they pay so much money to prohibit behavior
our courts deem lawful.

H. Thompson Prentzel III,
Fairbanks