Alaska Attorney Lawyer

For more than 30 years, Alaska’s courts have ruled that the Constitution of the State to data protection, the state locked the criminalisation of adult, and consume small amounts of marijuana in the privacy of their homes . Although voters of an initiative recriminalizing marijuana in the year 1991 and more than a decade passed before the courts, that the measure unconstitutional, Alaska’s courts have never symbol of the decision ranged from 1975 to Ravin v. State, legalizing the possession of the motherland.

Spectacle of propaganda tsar Gov. Murkowski and consumption of drugs Walters
That has never good with the opponents of the ban, as in 1991 by the initiative. Two years ago, after courts to adjust their respect Ravin, then-Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) is attempting to bring back the status quo. Then he managed to push through the legislature a law, once again, that recriminalize marijuana possession, and he stacked with a series of “legislative findings” is based on unilateral science has been developed to where nature of the marijuana had changed since the 1970’s, more dramatically, as Alaska’s courts should reconsider their position.

But if the law took effect in June 2006, the transfer of the Alaska ACLU of the state, and Juneau Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins impressed that in the summer, he says conflict with the state, Supreme Court decision de Ravin. The State introduced, and on Thursday of last week, the Supreme Court of the State is part of the oral arguments in the case.

Former Assistant Attorney General Dean Guaneli came again the retirement of its former role of the man as the leader in Alaska, the law enforcement efforts for the creation of the decision to cancel Ravin. This is not your father marijuana, he says, it is much more powerful, that pregnant women are more vulnerable in Alaska for using marijuana elsewhere in the country, and that 10% of users depending on the drug. All this, he argued, it is high enough for the court to review and a reversal of its decision in Ravin.

The ACLU, which took himself and two anonymous but he argued that the Tribunal is not cede politically motivated, the measurement results for the event. The court must become familiar with the greatest skepticism legislator knowledge “, before reversing decades of Alaskan decisions protecting the rights to privacy,” said ACLU attorney Jason Brandeis course of the oral proceedings.

The Tribunal is not a decision on the case of six months to one year, but it was observed with interest by observers throughout the country. Marijuana advocates of legal reform, especially in the hope that Alaska is always at the forefront.

“Alaska is currently the best marijuana in the country of laws - it is perfectly legal to possess small amounts in your home - and it would be a terrible setback, if a decision of that court to cancel and place For more than 30 years, “said Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “But it is far, then, the courts have in the Constitution lay down the penalties for private use of marijuana.”

“This is a very important case, the basis of certain principles of law,” said Jason Brandeis, who argue that the case with Adam Wolf national ACLU’s Drug Law Reform Project. “First, there is the question of former Decisis, respect for precedent. What we are asking the Court to do is respect for precedent and continues to Ravin of the rule, that is not really a good reason, the State can not penetrate the sanctity of Domestic and adults in certain types of behaviour, “he said.

“The State said that it has added new evidence that cannabis is dangerous, and that the state justifies the intangibility Piercing of the apartment, but our position is that it has simply no scientific evidence to the assertion that care, “said De Brandeis. “The question is whether the adults of marijuana in the home rises to a level of destruction of social welfare, justifies the removal of their privacy. We do not think that way.”

During the shutdown of Alaska will be important, as an example for the rest of the country, “said Stroup, it is also a practical impact. “One of the reasons this case, it is equally important is that for the period where it is legal, that small amounts at home, even though the police smell of marijuana, it is not for probable cause to arrest or secure a search term, “he stressed. “It’s important.”

To reverse the ravine Brandeis said that the Tribunal had to find a “close and substantial” to prevent a link between smoking among adults in the home, marijuana and the state’s interest in protecting public health and safety. judgement that it would be “a huge step backwards,” he said. “It would be a major blow to the privacy of our rights, and we take very seriously our privacy here.”

Brandeis has refused to comment on the outcome of the case, but appeared optimistic. “It is quite clear that the Court knows what the problems are,” he said. “There were a lot of questions at what level of respect, the Tribunal should outcome of the legislative process, and I think we have strong arguments, that the Tribunal is not appropriate, should be in this situation.”

Stroup was not quite exercised great restraint. Regardless of how what he sees as Gov. Murkowski “Reefer Madness” and the legislative process knowledge it inspires, Stroup said he was confident that Ravin are respected. “I do not think we could lose,” he said. “I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court of Alaska is to do everything, unlike Ravin it.”