Ballot initiative would clarify marijuana laws

We’re not going to tell you how to vote on the marijuana legalization initiative this fall.

Approved for the ballot this week, the legislation would make it legal for people 21 and older to own and use an ounce of pot and have up to six plants. That’s a good definition of a “user’s amount,” in our view.

Whether to use alcohol or drugs is a personal choice, but in terms of Alaska statutes, we see an upside in this initiative. If approved, it would clarify a chunk of Alaska law that is currently murky at best. It’s been a long time since Alaska had clearly defined laws for the personal use and cultivation of marijuana.

In 2009 when the federal government announced its intention to ease up on the prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries, we set out to write a news story with the intention of printing what we hoped would be a clarification of Alaska’s marijuana laws.

But in trying to clarify the law, we only became more confused.

The police detective we talked to said that outside a person’s home, he knew it was his duty to seize and destroy marijuana with the decision of whether to ticket its owner left at his discretion.

But what about marijuana found inside a person’s home? That’s where the law is tangled.

Currently, those rules are governed by Ravin v. State, a 1975 appeals court ruling that extended Alaska’s privacy laws to cover possession of up to an ounce at home.

What we came to understand through our reporting was that Ravin didn’t necessarily authorize possession, but instead simply barred police searches when there is no evidence that more than an ounce is inside a person’s home.

So, police can’t get a warrant, but what if they find marijuana when they have permission to enter the home another way, say for a welfare check or an expected home death? Several Alaskans who thought they were on the right side of the law wound up facing misdemeanor or even felony charges after police showed up at their houses on other business and found marijuana there.

These are the sorts of problems that result from deciding the rules one court case at a time rather than through thoughtful legislation.

As Colorado has learned, taxes are another potential upside to the question of legalizing marijuana. We expect the piles of cash Colorado is rolling in will simply be too significant to ignore. We aren’t the sort to leave money on the table and see taxing marijuana sales as the sort of low-hanging fruit that should be considered ahead of raiding the Alaska Permanent Fund.

If voters approve this initiative, we will very much appreciate the clarity and tax dollars it would bring. And if it doesn’t pass, we hope our legislators will provide that clarity.