Pubdate: Sat, 28 Feb 2015
Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)
Copyright: 2015 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://newsminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/764

LOCAL MARIJUANA CLARITY WELCOME: DESPITE TIGHT TIMEFRAME, LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS ENACT COMMON-SENSE RULES

It took a couple days post-legalization, but Interior municipal 
governments appear to be on the same page with local marijuana rules. 
That's no small feat. With little time to collaborate on rules in 
Fairbanks, North Pole and the borough at large, the potential existed 
for serious conflicts between how marijuana could be possessed and 
used in each of our local communities. Such an outcome would have 
been a headache for legal professionals to sort out and would have 
had impacts on local residents confused about the overlaps and 
discrepancies in municipal rules.

Kudos to our local governments for independently coming to 
common-sense conclusions about what behavior is acceptable among 
Interior residents.

The role of local government in regulation of personal possession and 
use of marijuana is chiefly to determine what "public use" of the 
drug means, as such use is barred under the language of recently 
enacted Ballot Measure 2. There is considerable latitude as to what 
is "public" under the law: clearly, property and buildings owned by 
state and local government would be public.

But what of businesses used by the public, especially restaurants or 
bars where other drugs like alcohol and tobacco are allowed?

What about private property in close proximity to public areas, where 
the drug's use would be visible and potentially impact members of the public?

In the days leading up to Feb. 24, when personal possession and use 
of marijuana became legal, the city of Wasilla showed just how broad 
municipal governments' interpretation of their authority could be. 
The Wasilla city government voted Feb. 23 to ban the making of 
marijuana edibles, concentrates and extracts even within residents' 
homes. The source of that level of regulatory authority is unclear 
under the law, as is the government's ability to enforce such a ban. 
Had such restraints been put into effect locally, there would have 
been serious differences in what behavior was acceptable depending on 
one's location in the greater Fairbanks area.

Measures considered by local governments here didn't conflict a great 
deal, but there was one major difference between city and borough 
ordinances as they were originally proposed.

While the Fairbanks and North Pole city ordinances allowed for use on 
private property with consent of the property owner, borough mayor 
Luke Hopkins proposed that personal use not be allowed within view of 
public property. That's a major distinction - if enacted, it would 
have barred most residents from partaking in cannabis in their yards 
or property outside their homes visible from public roads.

The mayor's ordinance, however, was amended to be largely in line 
with the North Pole and Fairbanks rules.

As a result, whether you're in Fairbanks, North Pole or anywhere else 
in the borough, the rules are the same: you can use marijuana in a 
private home or on private property so long as that property belongs 
to you or you have the property owner's permission.

That simplicity of law not only makes sense and jibes with Alaska 
sentiment about privacy and property rights, but also has the virtue 
of being simple enough for residents to easily understand. Despite a 
short timetable in which to draw up rules and a broad range of views 
on marijuana in general, our local governments have independently 
arrived at a common-sense definition of public use. Interior 
residents will benefit from that clarity and simplicity.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom