Pubdate: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK) Copyright: 2014 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc. Contact: http://newsminer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/764 'YES' ON BALLOT MEASURE 2 WRONG CHOICE The Poorly Worded, Vague Language of the Measure Leaves Too Many Unknowns Alaska has a relationship with marijuana grounded more on a constitutional right to privacy than on anything else. The Alaska Supreme Court made that clear with its 1975 ruling commonly known as the Ravin decision, named after Irwin Ravin, the man who challenged his 1972 arrest on a charge of violating the state's law against marijuana possession. The justices' words should be listened to as the public decides the outcome of Ballot Measure 2, which if approved would allow the production, sale and use of marijuana and marijuana products by people age 21 and older. It would allow, among other things, for the establishment of licensed marijuana shops and the taxation and regulation of the newly legal industry. The justices, in their landmark ruling allowing the personal use of marijuana in the home, expressed agreement with the view that marijuana consumption carries societal and individual risk, especially for the young. "The state has a legitimate concern with avoiding the spread of marijuana use to adolescents who may not be equipped with the maturity to handle the experience prudently, as well as a legitimate concern with the problem of driving under the influence of marijuana ... "In view of our holding that possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected, we wish to make clear that we do not mean to condone the use of marijuana. The experts who testified below, including petitioner's witnesses, were unanimously opposed to the use of any psychoactive drugs. We agree completely. "It is the responsibility of every individual to consider carefully the ramifications for himself and for those around him of using such substances. With the freedom which our society offers to each of us to order our lives as we see fit goes the duty to live responsibly, for our own sakes and for society's. This result can best be achieved, we believe, without the use of psychoactive substances." Changing the long-standing status quo by approving Ballot Measure 2 would be the wrong choice for Alaska. Measure 2 is, bluntly, poorly worded. It is vague to the point of being reckless in that it fails to specify, for example, what controls would be in place to ensure a legalized marijuana market is run properly and without harm to Alaskans. It leaves that task for later, though we don't know when that would be. What we get in the ballot measure language presented to voters are these empty words: "The regulations would need to cover certain topics and be subject to certain restrictions." What topics? What restrictions? Nowhere, for example, does the ballot measure impose any prohibition on the packaging of commercially available marijuana and edible marijuana products in a manner that makes them attractive to children and easily opened by youngsters. The state of Colorado, whose voters legalized the sale of recreational marijuana and related products in 2012, has been dealing with problems since retail marijuana outlets opened for business in January of this year. New rules, made in response to concerns by health officials and others, take effect today. The concern in Colorado, according to a July story in the Denver Post, was about "overconsumption by inexperienced consumers." Among the changes Colorado had to make because its law wasn't specific at the outset: Eliminating bite-sized marijuana products containing the legal maximum of 100 milligrams of THC, the mind-altering chemical contained in a marijuana plant. Putting single-serving edible marijuana products in child-resistant packaging before shipping them to stores. Putting liquid marijuana products such as sodas in child-resistant containers. Measure 2 in Alaska, according to the ballot language, would allow the sale and production of "marijuana and marijuana products." Nowhere in the ballot language, however, is there a definition of "marijuana products." These likely include marijuana-laced cookies and candies and marijuana concentrates - items that have caused Colorado some trouble. Also, the state would incur a substantial cost if Measure 2 is approved - up to $7 million in implementation costs during the first year, according to information developed by the Legislative Affairs Agency and included in the official election pamphlet. While those costs would decline and be offset somewhat by marijuana tax revenue, other costs would be incurred as the state moved into greater education about marijuana "as the extent of the impact on public health becomes more defined," the agency writes. Two other references from the Legislative Affairs Agency material jump out: "... there is evidence that downstream health and social service consequences of implementing this initiative could be significant." "There are numerous unknowns in the State's implementation of this initiative ..." Too many unknowns. That's the one thing we know for sure. A "no" vote on Ballot Measure 2 is best for Alaska. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom