Pubdate: Wed, 29 Oct 2014
Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)
Copyright: 2014 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://newsminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/764
Author: Keith Mallard
Note: Keith Mallard is the chief of the University of Alaska 
Fairbanks Police Department and a former colonel with the Alaska 
State Troopers. He lives in Fairbanks.

TOO MANY QUESTIONS ON MEASURE 2

On Nov. 4, Alaskans will make a decision on Ballot Measure 2: whether 
to legalize the use of marijuana.

As we make this decision, it is important we base it on complete 
information rather than the propaganda that is being slung.

We have the benefit of not being the first state to wrestle with this issue.

All we need to do is look as far as Colorado and Washington to truly 
understand the effects of legalizing marijuana.

So what are we hearing coming out of Colorado? The legalization and 
commercialization of marijuana in Colorado started less than two 
years ago, and there are several problems, consequences and new 
financial repercussions associated with the law. They are reporting 
increased marijuana-related emergency room visits, increased hash oil 
explosions, increased marijuana-involved auto fatalities, and an 
increased number of workers testing positive for marijuana.

What are the professions of these workers?

How do we keep these workers from being our school bus drivers or 
heavy equipment operators?

Now, voters in Colorado are beginning to regret the choice they made. 
A Suffolk University/USA Today poll shows that 50 percent of likely 
voters now oppose legalization and only 46 percent agree with it.

In addition to what we are hearing from Colorado, when you examine 
the ballot measure, there are far too many questions.

For example, the substantive questions regarding the ability of 
states to tax something that remains illegal under federal law. In 
the ultimate irony, the same activists who convinced the voters of 
Colorado that revenue from marijuana taxes would fund important 
services are now in court claiming the very taxes they proposed are 
violating their civil rights, because by paying them, they are 
admitting involvement in a federally prohibited activity.

Should Alaskans not wait to see the outcome of this case before 
moving forward blindly?

If the court rules against taxation, Alaska will not see any revenue 
from the sale of marijuana but will incur all the social costs.

You will hear a lot of information regarding arrests for marijuana, 
but no one seems to be exploring the facts.

The data source drawn upon, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, defines 
arrests broadly.

An "arrest" as defined by UCR includes not only those physical 
arrests when someone is booked into jail, but also includes actions 
as simple as a summons into court, where the person is released on a 
promise to appear in court, similar to a traffic citation.

By representing these numbers as actual arrests versus making that 
specific delineation, the statistics give the erroneous 
representation of the number of actual arrests for marijuana possession.

Additionally, you will not hear that there are no inmates in an 
Alaska prison convicted of simple marijuana possession alone.

There are four inmates in the Alaska corrections system who are 
imprisoned for sixth-degree misconduct involving controlled 
substances, which includes possession. These individuals also have 
other convictions, sometimes multiple convictions, which could keep 
them in prison even if their marijuana convictions did not exist.

The concurrent convictions for these four inmates include 
second-degree attempted sexual assault, fourth-degree assault, 
driving with a suspended license, violating parole, misconduct 
involving weapons, and third-degree misconduct involving controlled substances.

But most concerning to me, as the former commander for the Alaska 
Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Enforcement, is the language in the 
initiative defining marijuana.

In the initiative marijuana is defined to include dangerous 
"concentrates" and "mixtures" like edibles.

It is important that before Alaskans decide on Nov. 4, we understand 
all of the risks associated with concentrates and edibles, including 
butane hash oil explosions and increased numbers of marijuana-related 
emergency rooms visits that are happening in Colorado. This is the 
"marijuana" Alaskans are being asked to legalize, commercialize and 
advertise in Alaska.

There are just too many unanswered questions that Alaskans need to 
explore before making this choice.

There are questions that need to be asked and answered about what the 
initiative really says, and so far that hasn't been done.

Do we know how much marijuana someone can process and have on 
premises where the plants are grown?

The initiative as written does not seem to have any limits.

Can anyone perform his or her own dangerous butane hash oil 
extractions? Under this ballot measure, it doesn't seem as if any 
state or local government can restrict these actions.

Can people barter for marijuana as long as it does not involve money? 
How would bartering affect the abilities of communities to exercise a 
local option preventing the sale of marijuana (but not possession by 
adults or gifting of marijuana, which it seems can't be prohibited 
under this initiative)?

What happens if you live in an area that is not covered by the "local 
government" definition? There does not appear to be any way to 
restrict retail sales or growing operations in these areas.

Are we not already struggling with enough issues in these communities 
and throughout Alaska without another problem on top?

Alaskans and Alaska news sources need to explore the gaps in the 
initiative. I have seen no language about setting standards for what 
constitutes driving under the influence of marijuana, or what rights 
apartment dwellers should have to prevent unwanted exposure to 
second-hand marijuana smoke.

This initiative raises far too many questions and Alaskans deserve answers.

This is not a decision where Alaskans should roll the dice and hope 
for the best. Until we have answered these questions with facts 
instead of platitudes, I am voting "no" on Ballot Measure 2 and urge 
my fellow Alaskans to do the same.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom