Alaska Superior court ruled a constitutional right to possess Marijuana

[Bandit]

http://juneauempire.com/stories/070603/sta_potconvect.shtml

A Superior Court judge dismissed a man's marijuana conviction, ruling that the Alaska Constitution guarantees the right to possess marijuana for personal use in the home.
<snip>

Lawyer Bill Satterberg filed to have the guilty verdict dismissed. He argued that Thomas' conviction was not constitutional as determined by the 1975 state Supreme Court decision made in Ravin v. State.
That decision made it legal for adults to possess marijuana in their homes for personal consumption as long as the amount of the drug didn't exceed enough to constitute "an intent to deliver."
<snip>

"My understanding of it is that if Ravin is still the law, then marijuana is still legal," said McLain, a former attorney.
He said Savell's decision does not necessarily set precedent, "although in reality it may be indicative of what other judges in Fairbanks do."
McLain added that he expects a more broad-scale debate to develop soon about whether Alaska's marijuana possession law is constitutional. McLain said he believes that the 1990 voter initiative that criminalized all pot use in the state is not binding, considering voters do not have the power to change the constitution through the initiative process.

This should really make Ashcroft squirm.

[TXlib]

1. Yeah...

This should really make Ashcroft squirm.

That smarmy pigfucker is in more dire need of a blowjob than pretty much any other white man in America.

[Liberal_Andy]

2. North to Alaska!!

n/t

[Bandit]

3. The only problem to this is all Alaska State troopers have been

deputized as US Federal Marshalls and as we all know it isn't against the US Constitution although it should be. No Policeman that isn't a US deputy can get a search warrant for the purpose of marijuana in the state of Alaska and there are far more local police than troopers. On the up side though if it is a federal crime it must go in front of a federal court. If it goes to a state court it will be tossed out. Federal courts are notorious for being full up so they will be more than willing to plea bargain.

[Terran]

4. Hmmm...

A state's constitution versus federal statutes and regulations. Who will win this one, assuming it's contested by the Feds? Which, if they don't do so, would appear to do away with the right of the federal gov't to control this issue.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. The feds will win this

until the state decides to order its troopers to not arrest people for possesion.

[Bandit]

6. Kick for an interesting subject

:kick:

[Bandit]

7. Once more ~ because for a "Conservative state" to do this is "something".

:kick: